29
   

Missing in action: Where is the mind?

 
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2010 11:23 am
@KaseiJin,
I will not tell you that the infinite forms of consciousness and mind are immaterial, and far from it, will assert as much to be true... If you look at the possible permutation of forty numbers on a lottery ticket you can wonder why nobody wins, or why when one wins many more do not also win... My point being that mind as the infinite essence of the neurological system has such complexity that were it possible to understand one person, you are only half way to understanding two people, and no where near to understanding humanity...Yes, we are the products of our cultures, but we are also the product of our natures, and that is a dynamic we are always in reltionship with, just as every day we must find food and drink.... We can falsely simplify people to their drives in gross, just as we can simplify them to the chemical reactions goin on in their brains... But why??? I mean; why give up something amazingly wonderful, which is the observation of the human mind, as it is for some scientific uncertainty, for nothing is certain in science, but science makes all reality uncertain... I do not accept metaphysical explanations, but neither do I look for scientific explanations because the complexity of the brain/mind is what makes it the wonder it is....As an infinite, it can possibly be modeled, but that is a far way from a true explanation...
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2010 05:12 pm
@KaseiJin,
Thanks for a very well thought-out reply (and to Fido also, actually I am generally more in agreement with that viewpoint). But as you have gone to such trouble to explain your view, I ought to respond in similar fashion.

I still say that your response falls outside the boundaries of the discipline of philosophy, as such. It is basically a scientific view, and, I suppose, as we live in a scientific time, many will assume that the scientific view is more 'modern' or more truthful than the old-fashioned notions of philosophy.

Quote:
However (and possibly even setting the above aside) there are the basics which we'll have to face up to. We can assert that it is known that the normal H. sapiens will have two retinas, lined with photoreceptors (rods and cones) which project towards the lens of the eye. These are interconnected by amacrine and horizontal cells which are which contact with the projection intermediate bipolar cells. The outer ganglion layer projects through the optic disk and forms the optic nerves that project to the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), and we don't even know it on our own (purely subjectively speaking [there's the blind spot we never see, you see]).


This is perfectly true. But there are many kinds of blind spots. There are those that determine what we will consider as 'evidence' or 'proof' or even 'reality'. Many of these are cultural in origin, rather than physiological, but very similar in that they are impossible for the subject to detect and determine what he or she will or won't see. Bear that in mind when considering the next question.

Quote:
In today's library of time-tested empirical knowledge (leaving the modifier scientific out of the picture, even), the person who claims to know that memory is immaterial, that visual, auditory, olfactory, and taste sensations are immaterial, that self-awareness and self-orientation are immaterial, that cognition is immaterial in nature, are under the absolute obligation to present evidence--beyond-a-doubt-cold-cash-on-the-barrel-head evidence--that our discoveries are false!


I wonder what such evidence would constitute? How would it turn up in practice? Would, for example, cases of persons remembering a previous existence provide evidence that memory, self-awareness and the like are somehow able to exist, or migrate, from one physical structure to another? Another phenomenon from the vaults of ESP research is remote viewing. It has been established in US army trials that remote viewing occurs. This would also tend to indicate that the mind is, at the very least, something which extends beyond the individual organism, would it not?

I have a couple of other questions, but that one is pretty important, so I might leave it there for now.
0 Replies
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 07:47 am
jeeprs, Fido, I appreciate your posts, and will respond in chronological order, and in a way which may allow some overlap which can be seen to be in response to the overall theme. I will also ask for understanding in my desire to go ahead and take the idea up on the other thread, in its proper timing (if there is, really, such a thing)

Fido, I appreciate your better coherence in this most recent post, and wish to encourage that. I still reason that your drive in this thread has been on a slightly different point from the one I have been working on--but here, it comes closer to what I am arguing on. I understand what your saying, and have been, and am, looking into to such things (as my research is now going on 6 years). I feel you may be over emotionalizing it a bit, but there are many factors which make towards the making of a person--from genetic, to environment (which would include cultural/sub-cultural aspects) and personal history.

What I am focusing on, however, is the mind (as per definition), and the evidence which far more clearly shows that the mind is brain. Now I can assure you, and I hope you find room to trust my understanding here, that there is enough similarity in each and every H. sapiens' brain, and enough similarity in the 'ways' of cognizing that much can be understood. That is nowhere near saying, nevertheless, that we know all, and I hope no confusion will be caused on that point. Additionally, not only us H. sapiens, but others in our genus, and in the pan genus also were minds . . . it's a brain thing . . . animals are minds too (and the definition, again helps us determine that).

OH NO...just ran out of time... please forgive me jeeprs, I'll get back with you tomorrow, I promise (sorry) KJ
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:44 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

If you have a starting assumption you cannot ever arrive at anything but more assumptions.

Every argument has starting assumptions. They are unavoidable if you exist inside this universe.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 09:15 pm
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin wrote:

jeeprs, Fido, I appreciate your posts, and will respond in chronological order, and in a way which may allow some overlap which can be seen to be in response to the overall theme. I will also ask for understanding in my desire to go ahead and take the idea up on the other thread, in its proper timing (if there is, really, such a thing)

Fido, I appreciate your better coherence in this most recent post, and wish to encourage that. I still reason that your drive in this thread has been on a slightly different point from the one I have been working on--but here, it comes closer to what I am arguing on. I understand what your saying, and have been, and am, looking into to such things (as my research is now going on 6 years). I feel you may be over emotionalizing it a bit, but there are many factors which make towards the making of a person--from genetic, to environment (which would include cultural/sub-cultural aspects) and personal history.

What I am focusing on, however, is the mind (as per definition), and the evidence which far more clearly shows that the mind is brain. Now I can assure you, and I hope you find room to trust my understanding here, that there is enough similarity in each and every H. sapiens' brain, and enough similarity in the 'ways' of cognizing that much can be understood. That is nowhere near saying, nevertheless, that we know all, and I hope no confusion will be caused on that point. Additionally, not only us H. sapiens, but others in our genus, and in the pan genus also were minds . . . it's a brain thing . . . animals are minds too (and the definition, again helps us determine that).

OH NO...just ran out of time... please forgive me jeeprs, I'll get back with you tomorrow, I promise (sorry) KJ


There are many good reasons to understand the human brain, which is the main part of mind in a normal person... There are many bad reasons for seeking the same knowledge.. If you understand of people, that they, like their minds are infinites the you will see what I am saying here... You cannot define infinites...Definitions, unless they are physical definitions, do not help in the determination of anything...It is rather your definitions that must always be proved...

Next: When you say: making a person, and the factors etc, you are acting as though anybody can be done being made, and this is not true... You see a person in time, but they are never made until they are finished and then it is too late because they are dead... I am nascent, as everybody is... We are most of us growing, and all of us are changing, and that is one fact that makes us infinites... We cannot be seen as objects, not conceived of as a pound of sugar, of an ounce of syrup.... We are never the same river twice... And no matter how well meaning is the intention, it is wrong to presume of one a sameness with another... Two people in the same room looking at the same wall do not have the same experience of it... No matter how hard they try they cannot share the experience, but only the meaning of it... It may be that all the do gooders who think they can find the common thread of the common man may find two; the essential and internal one of DNA, and the other of shared moral forms and social forms which are external to the person... No mind can be produced from a brain... Instead, as a shared moral form the idea of mind is accepted, even though it cannot be produced and verified as a true idea...
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 10:04 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

KaseiJin wrote:

jeeprs, Fido, I appreciate your posts, and will respond in chronological order, and in a way which may allow some overlap which can be seen to be in response to the overall theme. I will also ask for understanding in my desire to go ahead and take the idea up on the other thread, in its proper timing (if there is, really, such a thing)

Fido, I appreciate your better coherence in this most recent post, and wish to encourage that. I still reason that your drive in this thread has been on a slightly different point from the one I have been working on--but here, it comes closer to what I am arguing on. I understand what your saying, and have been, and am, looking into to such things (as my research is now going on 6 years). I feel you may be over emotionalizing it a bit, but there are many factors which make towards the making of a person--from genetic, to environment (which would include cultural/sub-cultural aspects) and personal history.

What I am focusing on, however, is the mind (as per definition), and the evidence which far more clearly shows that the mind is brain. Now I can assure you, and I hope you find room to trust my understanding here, that there is enough similarity in each and every H. sapiens' brain, and enough similarity in the 'ways' of cognizing that much can be understood. That is nowhere near saying, nevertheless, that we know all, and I hope no confusion will be caused on that point. Additionally, not only us H. sapiens, but others in our genus, and in the pan genus also were minds . . . it's a brain thing . . . animals are minds too (and the definition, again helps us determine that).

OH NO...just ran out of time... please forgive me jeeprs, I'll get back with you tomorrow, I promise (sorry) KJ


Quote:
There are many good reasons to understand the human brain, which is the main part of mind in a normal person... There are many bad reasons for seeking the same knowledge.. If you understand of people, that they, like their minds are infinites the you will see what I am saying here... You cannot define infinites...Definitions, unless they are physical definitions, do not help in the determination of anything...It is rather your definitions that must always be proved...


infinites are defined as that which never dies or goes out of physical and/or energy existence

lets start here

KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 01:03 am
And now, after earlier hitting the wrong key and having had to then come back to the page...with this little box as white as snow...I will respond to jeeprs (see this post).

I'm am glad you decided to continue to take a look at this. I'd like to stress once again (and perhaps it cannot be over stressed) that it doesn't really matter if we are discussing within the bounds of formal philosophy (or even informal philosophy) or science, so much at all. What matters is that when we make assertions as to what the real facts of nature are--as regards the topic at hand--we need to be careful and thorough in making the effort to determine, as much as possible, just how much we can actually demonstrate to be the real facts of nature.

For example (and let me get two birds with one stone, here) when I say 'blind spot' in he context of the eye, I am specifically talking about an area of the retina in which there are no photoreceptors, and thus no sensory input sent to LGN, or the occipital lobe. The visual field has a black spot there which is hard to draw top-down attention to, so as to cognize it in the consciousness state subjectively. If one were to claim that there is no such 'blind spot,' they would have to demonstrate that the evidence for there being one, is faulty and incorrect--and of course, it cannot be done.

Likewise, if one were to assert that the emotional disposition of one's mind is a non-physical thing, and has nothing whatsoever to do with, especially, for example, the amygdala's being cellularly alive (meaning that major functioning cells in that structure are alive), then they will have to demonstrate that in those cases where that structure is materially (as in degree) damaged, the lost emotional state is fully operative somewhere...or somehow. Not only that, they'll have to demonstrate how it is that the implicit claim to know is valid--how they received that knowledge.

jeeprs wrote:
I wonder what such evidence would constitute? How would it turn up in practice? Would, for example, . . .


There are a number of ways to enter into a response mode on the section of your post which I have simply shown the beginning (to provide the link), and I intend to go into the details too (but possibly not on this thread). I will take the following entry firstly:

It can be very well established that you could never have written that paragraph if you had been in the state of slow wave sleep (SWS). While oral speech is possible (just as having sex, climbing a tree, driving a car, and even killing someone ,also are) coherency at such a level is not, and sitting down at a PC and communicating such in response to a statement, is not. It can well be established that if you had been in a minimal state of consciousness (MSC), a state of persistent 'pre-conscious' (persistent vegetative state (PVS), or a state of brain death, you could not have written what you had written.

It can be well established that as well, that if your brain build/state had been one of low-functioning autism, Down's syndrome, advanced Alzheimer's, or alexia with agraphia, etc., you couldn't have written what you had. This observation holds across the Homo genus. It also holds in most cases, to a similar (but not perfectly matching, of course) degree across a number of species. If one asserts that they know (and I am not pointing to you, jeeprs, or anyone here, really, but to the beginnings of such lines of thought) that the cognition processes which all the above signify a direct and immediate deficiency of, are still exactly intact and functioning in a non-physical state, under non-physical conditions, then they have the obligation of first demonstrating how all the evidence saying such is not the case is faulty and incorrect, and secondly, how the implicit claim (whoever may have said so) to have knowledge of such a said reality of nature, is valid. (how did they come to 'have that knowledge?')

To assert that cognition does not happen in brain (and ganglia to an extent too, but not like the brain) has most clearly been demonstrated to be a valid and real fact of nature. I could fairly easily fill one post the length of the entirety of page 7 of this thread with references for that (although the typing would be very time consuming, of course)

In looking at the two things you mentioned in your post, jeeprs, we find one very important and basic common denominator, namely, the brain.

As the real facts of nature stand, we cannot have long-term memory without long-term potentiation, and we cannot have that without certain biochemicals or all the proper proteins. Not only that, we will find that for increments of long-term memory recall (otherwise it's not called memory in the real world out there) we'll need certain structural elements (which is exactly why some folks have better recall, others less). So, how is it that a brain can recall (as fully established, both a physical state and process condition derived matter) something that is not part of it? The most obvious answer is that it cannot! It would be exactly the same as a person with a fully damaged V4, V5 telling us that they can see motion as perfectly as we can.

The concept of remote viewing is seemingly a misleading one. The idea appears to be not with actually visual inspection, but even so being able to describe some state of affairs at some location where a person isn't. I very seriously doubt that the phenomenia which does occasionally occur, is being treated correctly. Of the case studies I've seen (and they are few, I'll admit), and the overviews I've come across, the inconsistency is about what one would expect of the random occurrance range (chance).

Again, to be thorough here (and of course any who wishes to claim it is a truth of nature that what have clearly been demonstrated to be brain processes are not solely physical processes would want to do so) one will have to demonstrate how the information was processed in the synaptic systems--through what is called the 'binding process.' This true because there is only evidence that brain processes and binds in this fashion, quantum theories don't have any evidence, and field theories do not support pre-conscious nor above the threshold of consciousness facts.



Fido, your claim that 'no mind can be produced from a brain,' doesn't seem to fit the facts at all, actually. I believe, however, that what you are trying to present is (as I've said before) a different topic, pretty much. The idea of never being in the same river twice is interesting philosophy, but it has extremely little practical application or value...especially when talking about 'that which thinks, perceives; feels; wills; seat or subject of consciousness b) the thinking and perceiving part of consciousness; intellect or intelligence c)attention; notice d) all of an individual's conscious experiences e) the conscious and unconscious together as a unit.'

Otherwise, some points you are making, I don't disagree with in a philosophical manner of pondering them, but I am fully aware that in a practical sense, some of those statements will have the opposite conclusions: for example two people looking at the same wall will have the same experience of looking at that same wall--and there's no advantage in any pragmatic manner to break that down any further.

But here, I am talking about the mind of an individual. I am presenting the knowledge, based on the firmest of evidences, that the mind is brain. I hope that you are not trying to assert that culture spheres derived from geo-demographically based social groups of certain genetic lines over thousands of years were facts of nature before the first H. sapiens had ever been around. I really hope that's not what your trying to assert. Additionally, I hope that you are not trying to assert that other primates do not have minds, or that other animals also are void of minds...like these cats that I have here. This physical organ called the brain, in the special tissue that makes it (brain), is what minds. Are you outright denying that?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 02:36 am
@KaseiJin,
Despite the lengthy response, I don't think you actually addressed the question: if telepathic communication or remote viewing could be shown to occur, would this challenge the materialist account of mind? It would seem to show the existence of some kind of 'field effect'. This ought not to be too surprising, as field effects are now quite widely understood in physics, and possibly also biology.

Quote:

It can be well established that as well, that if your brain build/state had been one of low-functioning autism, Down's syndrome, advanced Alzheimer's, or alexia with agraphia, etc., you couldn't have written what you had.


So now you mention it, what about the extraordinary abilities of 'autistic savants'? Like Daniel Tammet, who memorized Pi to 22,514 places, and learned Icelandic in one week? There a quite a few of these cases - autistics who can tell you the weather on any day in the last 50 years, calculate extremely large numbers in an instant, and draw detailed city-scapes from memory? Anything in your sources that will explain that?
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 03:33 am
@jeeprs,
Quote:
Despite the lengthy response, I don't think you actually addressed the question: if telepathic communication or remote viewing could be shown to occur, would this challenge the materialist account of mind? It would seem to show the existence of some kind of 'field effect'. This ought not to be too surprising, as field effects are now quite widely understood in physics, and possibly also biology.


Telepathy has never been shown to occur and so this is a non starter. There is a very good reason to suppose it will bever be shown to occur in humans. We are a social species. Social behaviour is based (amongst other things) on deception. If humans were tepepathic they wouldn't be social.

In anyt event, telepathy, assuming it was ever found to exist, could easily be conceptualised within existing material laws.

Or do you think that the radio/tv/internet is magic?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 04:15 am
@stevecook172001,
Quote:
In anyt event, telepathy, assuming it was ever found to exist, could easily be conceptualised within existing material laws.


You think? How do you reckon that would work? What about precognition - seeing things before they happen? That would be tricky wouldn't it?
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 04:20 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
In anyt event, telepathy, assuming it was ever found to exist, could easily be conceptualised within existing material laws.


You think? How do you reckon that would work? What about precognition - seeing things before they happen? That would be tricky wouldn't it?

You've simply arbitrarily changed the goal posts here to suit your need. Pre-cognition is entirely different to telepathy and cannot, of course, be concieved withing the laws of pyhsics.

What is this irrational posychological need you have for magic?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 04:23 am
@stevecook172001,
OK then, leave precognition out. I am still interested in the possibility of a scientific theory for PKI, and perfectly open to it, also. If it were shown to be some kind of 'field effect', it would be interesting, would it not?
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 04:33 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

OK then, leave precognition out. I am still interested in the possibility of a scientific theory for PKI, and perfectly open to it, also. If it were shown to be some kind of 'field effect', it would be interesting, would it not?

Firstly, no effect has been shown.

Ever.

Secondly, were such an effect to be shown, it would of course be facinating. But, why would this be indicative of some kind indirect proof of a metaphysical God? You are grasping at straws here to try and make reality fit your emotional need for such a God.

The most important question you should be asking is why?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 04:41 am
@stevecook172001,
By its nature science will never accept circumstantial evidence. For those who believe their personal experiences are valid it requires reasoning. NDEs , dreaming the future, poltergeists and no amount of metaphysical phenomena are still to be considered. I disagree that they are all driven by emotion or desires for a particular god.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 04:44 am
@stevecook172001,
So I presume you are familiar with all the literature, or are you going on what you see on telly? There is a lot of evidence about.

I don't need to prove the existence of God. Why I brought up PKI is because it undermines materialism. Materialism is the defacto orthodoxy of the age. It is what all the secular intellectuals and University departments teach, it is the Current Dogma. It takes no particular originality to support it, all you have to do is go along with the crowd - whom I believe have it entirely wrong. In fact, and this is probably a new thread, I believe that science itself no longer supports materialism.
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 05:01 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

So I presume you are familiar with all the literature, or are you going on what you see on telly? There is a lot of evidence about.

I don't need to prove the existence of God. Why I brought up PKI is because it undermines materialism. Materialism is the defacto orthodoxy of the age. It is what all the secular intellectuals and University departments teach, it is the Current Dogma. It takes no particular originality to support it, all you have to do is go along with the crowd - whom I believe have it entirely wrong. In fact, and this is probably a new thread, I believe that science itself no longer supports materialism.

Describe/demonstrate the evidence of which there is apparently a lot about. You are the one making the claim.

Of course, materialism takes no originality to support it. The evidence for it is all around you. A child can appreciate such evidence, so vast and overwhelming is it. Why you seem to have such difficulty with it is an interesting psychological penomenon in itself.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand, where is the evidence for your claims?
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 05:07 am
@xris,
xris wrote:

By its nature science will never accept circumstantial evidence. For those who believe their personal experiences are valid it requires reasoning. NDEs , dreaming the future, poltergeists and no amount of metaphysical phenomena are still to be considered. I disagree that they are all driven by emotion or desires for a particular god.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever....none.....that such phenomena exist outside of the neuronal patterns of the people who believe them to exist. Therefore, the particular psychological reasons for why such irrational, non validatable beleifs should exist are a secondary order issue (though interesting in itself).

The primary issue is that there is no evidence

At all.

You remember, that little thing we rely on to ascertain whether something is true or not.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 05:12 am
@stevecook172001,
If I quoted any books, you would say they were false, so on ad infinitum. I am not interested in the argument. The question I asked was, if such phenomena could be shown to be true, would it undermine the materialist view? This is a philosophy forum, and that is a philosophical question.

OK then, I will refer to one book. Irreducible Mind, Towards a Psychology for the 21st Century, edited by Kelly and Kelly.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 05:13 am
@north,
north wrote:

Fido wrote:

KaseiJin wrote:

jeeprs, Fido, [/i])

Fido, KJ


Quote:
There are many good reasons to understand the human brain, which is the main part of mind in a normal person... There are many bad reasons for seeking the same knowledge.. If you understand of people, that they, like their minds are infinites the you will see what I am saying here... You cannot define infinites...Definitions, unless they are physical definitions, do not help in the determination of anything...It is rather your definitions that must always be proved...


infinites are defined as that which never dies or goes out of physical and/or energy existence

lets start here



Let us start there... We are here to define, and not to be hamstrung by worthless definitions... I say people are infinites... I say moral forms are infinites... Since they cannot be produced as objects, one like the other, they cannot be said to have an end, an edge, or a limit... Justice is a moral form, and so is liberty, and liberty is often justice and justice is often liberty... So is the mind a moral form... And this is because it is formed out of humankind's perception of itself... The mind is not a physical object, but is instead an uncertain meaning based soosely upon a physical reality: the Brain... But the brain alone is hardly the mind, but more accurately, the neurological system and that does not stand alone, but is directly a part of the whole body, and that whole body can hardly be removed from its environment and culture...If it were possible to reduce one person to so many chemical reactions or so much electrical potential it would only be a step toward doing something like that to all people; and perhaps, in the process, much injustice would be done...

You and your friend are exactly alike, so what I say of him, I can say of you seems to be the result of this one size fitzall philosophy... I do not doubt that the mind resides in the brain in a sense, and I do not accept that the mind can be taken from the brain, so it is an infinite with a gross definition of sorts... The complexity of all the factors making up the mind as it is presented to us and the complexity of all the factors that make one person individual as compared to another deny to the mind a firm definition... Mind is more than the sum of its parts even if all its parts could be reckoned... As a moral form it cannot be proved or measured or defined...
0 Replies
 
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 05:22 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

If I quoted any books, you would say they were false, so on ad infinitum. I am not interested in the argument. The question I asked was, if such phenomena could be shown to be true, would it undermine the materialist view? This is a philosophy forum, and that is a philosophical question.

OK then, I will refer to one book. Irreducible Mind, Towards a Psychology for the 21st Century, edited by Kelly and Kelly.


Is this the best you can offer. This book is a polemic. What actual, falsifiable evidence do you have for your claims.

I can only assume that you have no hard evidence whatsoever to produce here.

You're making sh*t up again aren't you Jeepers..... Laughing
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/28/2021 at 03:38:24