Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14420426 - 05/08/11 04:37 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Here's another way to look at it: can we break up the raw experience of feeling pain into component molecules or atoms?  Can we strap a voltmeter to the pure feeling of an orgasm?  Can we weigh my thought that '2 + 2 = 4'?  The answer is no to all of these questions because these things do not have physical properties.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14420433 - 05/08/11 04:38 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
You're claiming that the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical.


No I'm not, I'm claiming that it's entirely possible, and even somewhat likely that they are physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
If so, then please state what physical properties these possess.  Since IMO you can't do so, I rest confidently on my assertion that these are non-physical.


This is not fair..I have to provide evidence to prove that qualia are physical, but you don't have to provide evidence to prove that they are non-physical? I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy. :wink:




If all the evidence points towards these things NOT possessing physical properties (since you can't even name a single one), it seems very likely that they're not physical.  No fallacy here, bucko.  :wink:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14420478 - 05/08/11 04:51 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Here's another way to look at it: can we break up the raw experience of feeling pain into component molecules or atoms?


Not ethically, no, and not with the level of sophistication of our currently existing technology; it's possible that raw experience is made up of a certain kind of energy.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Can we strap a voltmeter to the pure feeling of an orgasm?  Can we weigh my thought that '2 + 2 = 4'?  The answer is no to all of these questions because these things do not have physical properties.


The answer is no, both because doing so would probably be unethical (we would have to play with people's brains while they are conscious), and because no methods for doing so have been developed yet. And, again, it's possible that raw experience is made up of some sort of physical property that we haven't discovered yet.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
You're claiming that the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical.


No I'm not, I'm claiming that it's entirely possible, and even somewhat likely that they are physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
If so, then please state what physical properties these possess.  Since IMO you can't do so, I rest confidently on my assertion that these are non-physical.


This is not fair..I have to provide evidence to prove that qualia are physical, but you don't have to provide evidence to prove that they are non-physical? I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy. :wink:




If all the evidence points towards these things NOT possessing physical properties (since you can't even name a single one)...


I'm still waiting on your definition of "mind" that defines it as being non-physical. :waits:

There is no evidence that the mind possesses no physical properties because we haven't developed methods to test whether or not it does--no tests have concluded that the mind is either physical or non-physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
No fallacy here, bucko.  :wink:


It seems like you're begging the question..you're saying that qualia (the thing to be proved) are non physical, and you're using this as one of your assumptions.

Quote:

Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology)

Reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. For example: "We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime". (This assumes it discourages crime.) Or, "The stock market fell because of a technical adjustment." But is an "adjustment" just a stock market fall?




--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Edited by Poid (04/19/12 06:26 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14420513 - 05/08/11 05:03 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
You're claiming that the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical.  If so, then please state what physical properties these possess.  Since IMO you can't do so, I rest confidently on my assertion that these are non-physical.




Who cares if they are defined as non-physical?  Its not really a meaningful or useful distinction to make.  Its an arbitrary distinction that only serves to re-enforce preconceived beliefs.

The love I feel for my wife would probably be defined by you as non-physical.  But that in no way opposes or negates the atheist/materialist point of view.


Personally, when I think of something that is physical, I think of something that simply has mass and the units of mass, grams.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14421893 - 05/08/11 09:19 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

How, exactly, am I begging the question?  We're trying to determine whether or not the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical, right?  If something is physical, it must have physical properties.  Since not a single physical property of the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia can be demonstrated out of the hundreds that are known to us, it seems like there is MUCH evidence demonstrating that these things are not physical.  I'm not assuming that anything is non-physical; rather, I am using the available data to draw this conclusion.

All your talk about some hypothetical, mysterious physical properties that have yet to be shown strikes me as a variant of ye olde fluffernaut standby:



Perhaps your resistance to the idea of something being non-physical is that you think such things are akin to a soul or spirits or some equivalently utterly intangible substance that is impossible to verify or investigate with any modicum of rational integrity.  Yet every day you experience the acts of thinking and feeling!  You stub your toe and you feel the pain; something that cannot be reduced down to atoms and molecules or empirically measured for current or gravitational force.  We can perform these measurements on the brain processes that correlate to this experience of pain, yes, and it is very likely that such brain processes are in some way equivalent to the experience of pain, but these brain processes have physical properties that the experience of pain DOES NOT possess.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14421914 - 05/08/11 09:22 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
The love I feel for my wife would probably be defined by you as non-physical.  But that in no way opposes or negates the atheist/materialist point of view.




Well, let's leave the atheist POV out of this for now as none of my arguments have addressed this.  At any rate, if something non-physical exists then materialism is automatically invalid; I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Personally, when I think of something that is physical, I think of something that simply has mass and the units of mass, grams.




This definition works for matter but ignores such physical things as energy, fields, forces and the like.  Philosophically speaking physicalism is taken to be synonymous with materialism; if you believe either one then you must believe that everything in the Universe including photons, electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force are physical.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14421915 - 05/08/11 09:23 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

You said 'fluffernaut'. :blush:

Ka-ching! Another royalty for Swami.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14421929 - 05/08/11 09:24 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Someday I, too, aspire to be an Internet forum millionaire.  :sad:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14421946 - 05/08/11 09:27 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Dost thou mockest me? :mad2:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14421984 - 05/08/11 09:34 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

:lol: I seriously do aspire, though.  Too bad the FBI shut down the three major online poker sites, just as I was getting good.  :mad:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14422048 - 05/08/11 09:42 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
How, exactly, am I begging the question?  We're trying to determine whether or not the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical, right?  If something is physical, it must have physical properties.  Since not a single physical property of the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia can be demonstrated out of the hundreds that are known to us, it seems like there is MUCH evidence demonstrating that these things are not physical.  I'm not assuming that anything is non-physical; rather, I am using the available data to draw this conclusion.


Pretty much everything in this universe has physical properties..it doesn't seam reasonable to assume that the mind is an exception. What available data are you talking about? The reason that not a single physical property of qualia has been demonstrated is because no methods have been developed to assist us in demonstrating the potential physical properties of qualia.


Quote:

deCypher said:
All your talk about some hypothetical, mysterious physical properties that have yet to be shown strikes me as a variant of ye olde fluffernaut standby:




Well, again, I don't find it reasonable to assume that the mind is non-physical, given that virtually every known thing in the universe is; I don't see why the mind should be an exception. I feel like you're just trying to exaggerate human specialness.

:imspecial:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Perhaps your resistance to the idea of something being non-physical is that you think such things are akin to a soul or spirits or some equivalently utterly intangible substance that is impossible to verify or investigate with any modicum of rational integrity.  Yet every day you experience the acts of thinking and feeling!  You stub your toe and you feel the pain; something that cannot be reduced down to atoms and molecules or empirically measured for current or gravitational force.


Nevertheless, I don't consider any sensations of pain I experience to be non-physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
We can perform these measurements on the brain processes that correlate to this experience of pain, yes, and it is very likely that such brain processes are in some way equivalent to the experience of pain, but these brain processes have physical properties that the experience of pain DOES NOT possess.


Physics, put broadly, is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves--since you say that the mind is non-physical, does this mean that you would also say it's unnatural?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14422384 - 05/08/11 10:48 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Everything is qualia (the world = your experience of the world, as far as you can ever know).

Everything observable through that experience is matter.

Logical conclusion, qualia = matter. Couldn't be further from "non-physical." What does that even mean?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher] * 1
    #14422430 - 05/08/11 10:58 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
:lol: I seriously do aspire, though.  Too bad the FBI shut down the three major online poker sites, just as I was getting good.  :mad:





Years ago I wrote on the Political Forum how I was 10,000 times more afraid of my own government than any terrorist organization. I caught huge flak from the Right-wingers in spite of the fact that millions of have been arrested for exercising a basic freedom to partake of what they want.

Now the US Govt has stolen thousands from me and violated international law by confiscating my hard-won dollars playing online poker. Do I have any legal recourse to get MY MONEY back? No. Why? Because they 'need' more money for US Defense Contractors in frivoulous 'wars'.

Welcome to fascism.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14424455 - 05/09/11 12:40 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
You're claiming that the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical.  If so, then please state what physical properties these possess.  Since IMO you can't do so, I rest confidently on my assertion that these are non-physical.




Who cares if they are defined as non-physical?  Its not really a meaningful or useful distinction to make.  Its an arbitrary distinction that only serves to re-enforce preconceived beliefs.

The love I feel for my wife would probably be defined by you as non-physical.  But that in no way opposes or negates the atheist/materialist point of view.


Personally, when I think of something that is physical, I think of something that simply has mass and the units of mass, grams.



The 'mind'-brain relation can be seen as a gateway from the 'nonphysical' to the 'physical' in this way.
So I care.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
    #14424787 - 05/09/11 01:55 PM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
Logical conclusion, qualia = matter. Couldn't be further from "non-physical." What does that even mean?


:justdontknow:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
    #14429213 - 05/10/11 10:44 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Pretty much everything in this universe has physical properties..it doesn't seam reasonable to assume that the mind is an exception. What available data are you talking about? The reason that not a single physical property of qualia has been demonstrated is because no methods have been developed to assist us in demonstrating the potential physical properties of qualia.




As far as I can tell, the mind/qualia are the only exception to the rule.  We categorically divide the universe into the physical (atoms, molecules, brains, etcetera) and the mental (experience, feelings, and thoughts) through which the physical is perceived, even though IMO it is likely that these are simply different perspectives of the same fundamental substance.  Your rationale that we just haven't developed a method to assist us in demonstrating the potential physical properties of qualia sounds exactly like a theist claiming that we just haven't developed a scientific method to detect God... it seems much more rational to conclude that since feelings/thoughts show no sign of being like any other physical phenomena we know of, they therefore are not physical.  :shrug:

Quote:

Poid said:
Nevertheless, I don't consider any sensations of pain I experience to be non-physical.




Seems odd when you can't describe a single physical property that they possess.  :sherlock:

Quote:

Poid said:
Physics, put broadly, is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves--since you say that the mind is non-physical, does this mean that you would also say it's unnatural?




Well, if you're defining Nature as everything physical then yes, I'd say that the mind is unnatural.

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
Everything is qualia (the world = your experience of the world, as far as you can ever know).

Everything observable through that experience is matter.

Logical conclusion, qualia = matter. Couldn't be further from "non-physical." What does that even mean?




All of our perceptions are qualia... there is a huge difference between our experience of the world and the world itself (see Kant's distinguishing between the noumena and the phenomena for further clarification).  Everything observable through these perceptions is physical in that we label certain regularities of perception matter or energy.  As for defining non-physical, just call it mental.  All these words are just labels to distinguish between our experience of the world and the world itself.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14429268 - 05/10/11 10:58 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Here's another way to look at it: can we break up the raw experience of feeling pain into component molecules or atoms?  Can we strap a voltmeter to the pure feeling of an orgasm?  Can we weigh my thought that '2 + 2 = 4'?  The answer is no to all of these questions because these things do not have physical properties.



We can map the brain state that occurs when you do all of those things, and could probably determine the "weight" and/or physical properties of the electro-chemical impulses present therein when you had the thought.

Just because we can't weight the thought itself doesn't mean thoughts aren't physical; it only means that their physical properties can't be directly observed, since they are the source of observation. But saying "you can't weigh a thought, so it's not physical" is like saying "you can't weigh sight, so sight isn't physical."

You can look in a mirror and see your eyes; similarly, you can look at a map of your brain states and see your thoughts' physical form.

As for Kant, he actually said that the noumenal world was entirely unknowable, and used that as his rationality for why many of the traditional philosophical questions were unreasonable. Many philosophers, as well as some physicists, do not draw a distinction between the "perceived world" and the "real world" (i.e. Nietzsche, Heidegger, and quantum physicist John Wheeler).


--------------------

Edited by NetDiver (05/10/11 11:05 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
    #14429284 - 05/10/11 11:03 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Sure, brain states are physical and we can measure the physical properties of the neurological correlates to thought.  But again, thoughts themselves do not have physical properties; only their correlates do.

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
Many philosophers do not draw a distinction between the "perceived world" and the "real world" (i.e. Nietzsche and Heidegger).




Source?  There's a pretty big difference between these, and to ignore it is to believe that optical illusions are real and that a color-blind person's inaccurate perception of the world is reality.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14429322 - 05/10/11 11:13 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

But, if thoughts themselves do not have physical properties, then neither do objects themselves, since objects are known entirely through our qualitative senses of them (which cannot be directly measured either).

For instance, say I am measuring the length of a plank of wood. It is 2 feet wide and 4 feet long. Objective, physical properties, completely removed from my subjective measurement of them, right? Wrong. How did I gain those measurements? Through my senses. I looked at the wood and looked at the measuring tape - both qualitative actions, composed of qualia. I can never measure the actual way the plank of wood and the measuring tape looked to me.

Senses, thoughts, and everything are all qualia -- so if a thought is not physical, then neither are the objects we perceive through our qualitative senses.

So you are left to claim either that nothing is physical, or that everything is physical. Given that the physical sciences have proved useful in shaping our qualitative experiences, I would opt for the second one.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14429365 - 05/10/11 11:21 AM (12 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Source?  There's a pretty big difference between these, and to ignore it is to believe that optical illusions are real and that a color-blind person's inaccurate perception of the world is reality.



You're missing the point entirely. To a color-blind person, the world they see is their reality; they know no other. You can tell them all you want that the world looks a different way, but they can never experience that.

As for a source, here's a quote from Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals (third essay, section 12):

Quote:

From now on, my philosophical gentlemen, let us protect ourselves better from the dangerous old conceptual fantasy which posits a “pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of cognition”; let’s guard ourselves against the tentacles of such contradictory ideas as “pure reason,” “absolute spirituality,” “knowledge in itself”—those things which demand that we think of an eye which simply cannot be imagined, an eye which is to have no direction at all, in which the active and interpretative forces are supposed to stop or be absent—the very things through which seeing first becomes seeing something. Hence, these things always demand from the eye something conceptually absurd and incomprehensible. The only seeing we have is seeing from a perspective; the only knowledge we have is knowledge from a perspective; and the more emotions we allow to be expressed  in words concerning something, the more eyes, different eyes, we know how to train on the same thing, the more complete our “idea” of this thing, our “objectivity,” will be.



http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/nietzsche/genealogy3.htm


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Understanding Points of View
( 1 2 all )
Axiom420 2,163 26 10/03/02 06:48 PM
by buttonion
* I want you guys to understand Christian Judgment
( 1 2 3 4 all )
World Spirit 4,363 65 05/05/03 09:33 PM
by CosmicJoke
* Some Christians and the Atheist
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Swami 14,273 119 07/31/02 07:19 AM
by Sclorch
* When will you all understand? There is no god!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )
Fliquid 21,700 263 09/22/11 10:30 AM
by Cactilove
* the Muslim and the Atheist Zahid 1,247 9 07/26/02 02:13 PM
by Anonymous
* Are Atheists __________? Indeed, they are.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
World Spirit 13,630 190 12/20/02 08:13 PM
by RebelSteve33
* My view on religion . . . djd586 636 4 04/16/03 05:38 PM
by SlapnutRob
* questions for the atheist.
( 1 2 all )
whiterastahippie 4,755 36 08/01/02 05:01 AM
by MAIA

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,952 topic views. 2 members, 14 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.