. It is hoped that in opening a
discussion of a novel approach, the artificial intelligence community
may eventually find a viable contender for its long overdue scientific
basis.
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
Hi Bruno,
I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast,
guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and
co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation called
rejection 101. It sounds like you have been through exactly what I
have been
The file. sorry use *Rejection 101.pdf*
enjoy!
colin
Colin Hales wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast,
guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and
co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation
What you have here is a phenomenon which has been described a lot for 50
years. It appears in the literature in the descriptions of the
synchronous behaviour of crickets, cicadas and fireflies.
Eg:
D. E. Kim, A spiking neuron model for synchronous flashing of
fireflies, Biosystems, vol. 76,
colin hales
*ABSTRACT*. Our chronically impoverished explanatory capacity in respect
of P-consciousness is highly suggestive of a problem with science
itself, rather than its lack of acquisition of some particular
knowledge. The hidden assumption built into science is that science
itself
definitely not computation in the
'computation BY' sense.
Enjoy!
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
this cultural schism operating?
regards
Colin Hales
Jason Resch wrote:
The following link shows convincingly that what one gains by accepting
MWI is far greater than what one loses (an answer to the born
probabilities)
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/if-many-worlds.html
The only law in all
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
When I read quantum mechanics and listen to those invested in the many
places the mathematics leads, What strikes me is the extent to which the
starting point is mathematics. That is, the entire discussion is couched
as if the mathematics
David Nyman wrote:
Thanks to everyone who responded to my initial sally on dreams and
machines. Naturally I have arrogated the right to plagiarise your
helpful comments in what follows, which is an aphoristic synthesis of
my understanding of the main points that have emerged thus far. I
their outcome
projections/expectations reviewed?
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
that
artificial light is light.
R.I.P. COMP
= Strong AI (a computer can be a mind) is false.
= Weak AI (A computer model of cognition can never be actual cognition)
is true.
It's nice to finally have at least one tiny little place (X) where the
seeds of clarity can be found.
Cheers
colin hales
1Z
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
refutation of computationalism.
It's going through peer review at the moment.
The basic problem that most people fall foul of is the conflation of
'physics-as-computation
Rex Allen wrote:
If computationalism is true, and computation is the source of
conscious experience, then shouldn't we expect that what is
ontologically real is the simplest possible universe that can develop
and support physical systems that are Turing equivalent?
Does our universe look
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
refutation of computationalism.
It's going through peer review at the moment.
The basic problem that most people fall foul
ronaldheld wrote:
As a formally trained Physicist, what do I accept? that Physics is
well represented mathematically? That the Multiverse is composed of
mathematical structures some of which represent physical laws? Or
something else?
Ronald
regrettable snips to get at the heart of it. One thing at a time. Hope
you don't mind.
russell standish wrote:
Nobody is suggesting that brains are Turing machines. All that is
being suggested (by COMP) is that brains perform computations (and
nothing but), hence can be perfectly emulated by
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Aug 2009, at 04:37, Colin Hales wrote:
Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
refutation of computationalism.
It's going through peer review at the moment.
The basic problem that most people fall foul of is the conflation of
'physics
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2009, at 09:08, Colin Hales wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Aug 2009, at 04:37, Colin Hales wrote:
Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
refutation of computationalism.
It's going through peer review at the moment.
The basic
will do...
I refute it thus!
-Dr. Johnson http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
*From:* Colin Hales mailto:c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/12 Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au:
My motivation to kill COMP is purely aimed at bring a halt to the delusion
of the AGI community that Turing-computing will ever create a mind. They are
throwing away $millions based on a false belief
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Colin,
We agree on the conclusion. We disagree on vocabulary, and on the
validity of your reasoning.
Let us call I-comp the usual indexical mechanism discussed in this
list (comp).
Let us call m-comp the thesis that there is a primitive natural
world, and that it
Hi,
Can you please send a .PDF or a .DOC
I can't read .DOCX and I can't upgrade my PC to read ituni rules... :-(
regards
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group
Jason Resch wrote:
Described in this article:
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2617
This summation of all paths, proposed in the 1960s by physicist
Richard Feynman and others, is the only way to explain some of the
bizarre properties of quantum particles, such as their
short
(1500 words!) *
Enjoy.
Colin Hales
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr
this.
This is the position I am gradually building.
I am going to go so far as to formally demand a summit on the matter. I
believe things are that screwed up. 300 years of this confinement in the
(A) prison is long enough.
cheers
colin hales
--
You received this message because you
received from 'reality and
indiviually colored to one's personal background and mental-built.
Now I have some remarks - not argumentative mostly (except for the
'Science of Quale') on that beautifully crafted (short!) writing that
reaped the award.
Here it goes:
Colin Hales was named a 'winner
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Colin,
I think we have always agreed on this conclusion. We may differ on the
premises.
It just happen that I am using a special hypothesis, which is very
common, but not so well understood, and which is the digital mechanist
hypothesis.
I think things are more subtle
!
:-)
Colin Hales.
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Friends,
Please check out the following paper by Bas C. van Fraassen for
many ideas that have gone into my posts so far, in particular the
argument against the idea of a “view from nowhere”.
www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract
of such a situation, just as an exercise..
cheers
colin hales
Bruno Marchal wrote:
HI Stephen,
Just a short reply to your post to Colin, and indirectly to your last
posts.
On 22 Oct 2010, at 10:53, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Colin,
Let me put you are ease, van Fraassen has
Brent Meeker wrote:
On 10/23/2010 2:37 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
I am pretty sure that there is a profound misinterpretation and/or
unrecognized presupposition deeply embedded in the kinds of
discussion of which Van F and your reply and Bruno's fits. It's so
embedded that there appears
something!) behind
the 'artificial scientist' that must have 'real' observations.
Cheers
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything
this. I can't wait to play with it... anyone got $100
million? Call me. :-)
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
of the underlying reality THE physics and the
physics of appearances ('traditional empirical physics') the
'aboutness'-physics = 'meta'-physics? Seems to me the nomenclature is
backwards. Not that I care... as long as both physics get done... the name
does not matter.
Cheers
Colin Hales
It's one of my favourite lines from Hume! but the issue does not
live
quite so clearly into the 21st century. We now have words and much
neuroscience pinning down subjective experience to the operation of
small
groups of cells and hence, likely, single cells. It's entirely
===
STEP 6: Initial state, 'axioms'
(*)
The initial state of the EC axiom set is 1 huge collection of phase related
fluctuations.
The (*) means that all the axioms are coincident - there is no 'space' yet.
No concept of place. The number of spatial
Colin Hales wrote:
3) The current state of the proof is 'now'
the thin slice of the
present.
Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin,
until I've a little
more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's
about - 'time'. Just
how thin is this slice of yours
keep looking at
it. The trick is to let go of the idea that 'fundamental building blocks'
of nature are a meaningful concept (we are tricked into the belief be our
perceptual/epistemological goals) ...
cheers,
colin hales
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity
Hi,
What they did was hook X million simple neural soma models to each other
with Y000 models of synaptic interconnects. Very useful for investigating
large-scale dynamicsbutthe leap to 'mouse brain'?.presumptuous
I think. Perhaps... 'Mouse-brain scale idealised connectionist model'
to
learn.
If the computer/scientist can match the human/scientist...it's as
conscious as a human. It must be.
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
that isn't
axiomatically flawed. Everything is scientific evidence of something.
Scientists are no exception.
cheers,
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
that isn't
axiomatically flawed. Everything is scientific evidence of something.
Scientists are no exception.
cheers,
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
colin hales
BTW thanks.I now have the BAAS paper on .PDF
Baas, N. A. (1994) Emergence, Hierarchies, and Hyperstructures. In C. G.
Langton (ed.). Artificial life III : proceedings of the Workshop on
Artificial Life, held June 1992 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, Mass.
I'll
Hi again,
Russel:
I'm sorry, but you worked yourself up into an incomprehensible
rant. Is evolution creative in your view or not? If it is, then there is
little point debating definitions, as we're in agreement. If not, then we
clearly use the word creative in different senses, and perhaps
as science? (B)
of course. (B) is science and has an empirical future. Belief (A) is
religion, not science.
Bit of a no-brainer, eh?
Cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
Hi Stathis,
Colin
The bogus logic I detect in posts around this area...
'Humans are complex and are conscious'
'Humans were made by a complex biosphere'
therefore
'The biosphere is conscious'
Stathis
That conclusion is spurious, but it is the case that non-conscious
such descriptions are logically necessarily impotent in
prescribing why that very consciousness exists at all.
Wigner got this in 1960something time to catch up.
gotta go
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
-
that will scientifically demonstrate science to us and therefore be
justifyably the possessors of qualia. Upon failure of the test the 'STUFF'
I have chosen must be the wrong STUFF and that will be scientifically
refuted. In any event real science will be done.
gotta go.
cheers
colin hales
Hi,
I am going to have to be a bit targetted in my responses I am a TAD
whelmed at the moment.
COLIN
4) Belief in 'magical emergence' qualitative novelty of a kind
utterly unrelated to the componentry.
RUSSEL
The latter clause refers to emergence (without the magical
qualifier),
Hi,
RUSSEL
All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have
introduced a new term necessary primitive - what on earth is that? But
I'll let this pass, it probably isn't important.
COLIN
Oh no you don't!! It matters. Bigtime...
Take away the necessary primitive: no
of MON_STUFF have nothing to do with
any other dance. That is the organisational level where the visibility
finally manifests to non-zero...why neural soma are fat - it's all about
signal to noise ratio.
weirdness time over. Gotta go.
Colin Hales
Dear Brent,
If you had the most extravagent MRI machine in history, which trapped
complete maps of all electrons, neuclei and any photons and then plotted
them out - you would have a 100% complete, scientifically acquired
publishable description and in that description would be absolutely no
work... and I am fiendishly empirical to the bitter end...
Before I re-deliver my X... I'd like to leave the discussion at the META-X
level (about any X or about all possible Xs)over to you
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
down a wys..
===
Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:47:19PM +1000, Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
RUSSEL
All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have
introduced a new term necessary primitive - what on earth
are necessarily unified scientific
activities. In that unification the answers await us.
regards,
Colin Hales
=
The Principle of Natural Ontic Genesis (Version_0)
It is a fundamentally necessary and implicit fact of the natural world,
regardless
is the most general - the physicist and in particular
the cosmologist.
regards,
Colin Hales
[1] Lisi, G. (2007) An exceptionally simple theory of everything.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770
==
Youness Ayaita wrote:
By this contribution
Hi Marc,
*/Eliezer/*'s hubris about a Bayesian approach to intelligence is
nothing more than the usual 'metabelief' about a mathematics... or about
computation... meant in the sense that cognition is computation, where
computation is done BY the universe (with the material of the universe
).
cheers,
colin
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Computationalism is FALSE in the sense that it cannot be used to construct a
scientist.
A scientist deals with the UNKNOWN.
If you could compute a scientist you would already know everything! Science
would be impossible.
So you can
NOT be a COMP entity. This is more doable in the shorter term.
So I can think of multiple reasons 'why you can't...X'..Thanks for
forcing me to verbalise the argument...in yet another way...
regards,
Colin Hales
==
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Colin Hales
ridden maths rapture
rules...something I cannot do.
regards,
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
From the everything list FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
represents the current state of QM.
Brent
calls it a 'reflexive monism',
but he does not apply the concept to science itself.
cheers
colin hales
*/- Terminology
/*
*/Neuroscience and cognitive science have a highly developed and well
documented system used to discuss the subjectively delivered, privately
presented
,
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more
Michael Rosefield wrote:
And of course you could always add ASPECT 0 - all possible instances
of ASPECT 1
Yeah.. a new 'science of universe construction'? I wonder if there's a
name for something like that? unigenesis?
As I said in my post to Jesse:
- - -- - - - - -
aspect 1 is NOT
I knew it
Row row row your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily Merrily Merrily Merrily
Life is but a dream.
Is actually a law of nature...
cheers
Colin Hales
Kim Jones wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html
back in boat, assuming merrily mode. It's as if I am rowing,
downstream. :-)
cheers,
colin hales
Kim Jones wrote:
Oh, somebody will stick their head up soon and disagree. Where would
all the fun and games be if some rash, working scientist actually
confirmed something?
Counting angels
Kim Jones wrote:
On 24/11/2008, at 10:29 AM, Colin Hales wrote:
OK. I was rowing my apparently virtual boat merrily down the stream.
But apparently that's not interesting enough. :-)
It's more interesting when you get a barbershop quartet to sing it as
a round - then you get polyphony
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Nov 23, 4:29 pm, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to this article, the best we can do is to VIRTUALLY CONFIRM
something. But since reality is VIRTUAL, according to this VIRTUAL
CONFIRMATION, is not VIRTUAL CONFIRMATION equivalent, in reality
Kim Jones wrote:
On 24/11/2008, at 1:50 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
It seems that the last thing physicists want to do is predict
themselves. They do absolutely everything except that. When they
say everything in a Theory of Everything, that's what they
actually mean: Everything
Hi,
Computationalsim pronounced dead here:
Bringsjord, S. (1999). The Zombie Attack on the Computational Conception
of Mind. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LIX(1), 41-69.
cheers
colin
Kim Jones wrote:
A representation of a thing (say MGA) is as good (ie as authentic) as
the
to deny self-awareness as a marker of self awareness. You can
use this as a logical bootstrap to sort things out.
I like it!
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group
Hi,
[ALL]
Lee, I seem to have miss-attributed the source of my guffaw that lead to my
little outburst to Bruno. Apologies to all as appropriate... :-)
[John Mikes]
Brent, Colin and Bruno:
I had my decade-long struggle on 3-4 discussion lists (~psych and ~Physx)
about objective reality being
Denton, The Primordial Emotions:
The dawning of consciousness, Oxford University Press. 2005
(Bruno: it came out first in French!)
That help?
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
and implicit to the reality of the
universe (whatever it is, it is it!) then the abstraction throws it away.
Cheers
Colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
missing something...
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
. WE are
computations within it. We can only ever acquire data about it from the
perspective of being in it.
Maybe you're not talking about the same universe as me. We're trying to get
to grips with our universe, yes? I don't get it. Then again I seem not to
get a lot. :-)
Colin hales
is a communicable 1st
person perspective that yet another 'first person perspective' can find if
it looks. No-one ever has a 'third person' perspective. Ernest Nagel named a
book after it: 'the view from nowhere'. If 3rd person does not exist, then
1st person is all there is left, isn't it?
Colin
of a physics of qualia)
That's as complicated as it needs to be.
I think you and I are on the same wavelength here.
Speaking of coffee . I'm off!
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
David Nyman:
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Are First Person prime?
George Levy wrote:
Colin Hales remarks seem to agree with what I say. However, I do not
deny the existence of a third person perspective. I only say that it is
secondary
producing people/observers who can define words like
physicalism, which is kind of interesting, isn't it?
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
, but the rate/depth to which they are
analysed. A high novelty environment means faster/more brain process, time
apparently goes slowly (eg during an accident). In a low novelty environment
the brain analysis rate/depth drops. Time appears to go more quickly.
Cheers
Colin Hales
.
I'd recommend spending time working on structures that 'look like' QM when
you are part of the structure.
Make sense? I'll keep saying this until it sinks in. Somebody other than me
has to see this!
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
LZ:
Colin Hales wrote:
The underlying structure unifies the
whole system. Of course you'll
get some impact via the causality of the
structurevia the deep structure right down into
the very fabric of space.
In a very real way the existence of
'mysterious observer
. Parsimony
demands we assume 'something' and then investigate it. Having done that we
need to hold that very same 'something' responsible for all the other
'seeming' delivered by qualia.
Seeming sounds great until you try and conduct a scientific study of the
'seeming' system.
Colin Hales
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Hi,
A lot of the dialog below is a mismatch of ideas which indicates that I
have underestimated the degree of difficulty to be expected in getting
the
If they are different substructures within a further (different)
structure, they are also unified, in that
and T' equally. Natural laws in T' (future) will account for structures that
generate the qualia that are used to formulate the laws T. The system is
quite consistent and empirically backed throughout.
Cheers
Colin Hales
t0 Notes:
Please note that the detail included in these notes is not intended
for both T
and T' equally. Natural laws in T' (future) will account for structures that
generate the qualia that are used to formulate the laws T. The system is
quite consistent and empirically backed throughout.
Cheers
Colin Hales
t0 Notes:
Please note that the detail included in these notes
to formulate the laws T. The system is
quite consistent and empirically backed throughout.
Cheers
Colin Hales
t0 Notes:
Please note that the detail included in these notes is not intended to be
complete or even appropriately configured. It is merely intended to be a
prototype - as starting point
is not observable is completely absolutely wrong. We
observe consciousness permanently. It's all we ever do! It's just not within
the phenomenal fields, it IS the phenomenal fields.
Got it?
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
that I'd stop constantly coming
across signs of the aberrant beliefs in scientific discoursenot just
here on this list but all around meso pervasive and s wrong.
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
consciousness is invisible to realise that that is completely utterly wrong
and that as a result of thinking like that, valuable evidence as to the
nature of the universe is being discarded for no reason other than habit and
culture and discipline blindness.
Colin Hales
!an answer...
btw...I'm thinking of writing a short paper on the long overdue death of the
solipsism argument and the 'no evidence for subjective experience' dogma
I'd like to erect a grave-stone here on the everything list! R.I.P.
:-)
cheers,
colin hales
it they are welcome... just email me. Or perhaps I
could put it in the google forum somewhere... it can do that, can't it?
BTW: The 'what it is like' of a Turing machine = what it is like to be a
tape and tape reader, regardless of what is on the tape. 'tape_reader_ness',
I assume... :-)
Regards,
Colin
... I think I might be a world expert in zombies yes, that's
better.
:-)
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
Brent Meeker:
Colin Hales wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou
snip
Maybe this is a copout, but I just don't think it is even logically
possible to explain what consciousness
*is* unless you have it. It's like the problem of explaining vision to a
blind man: he might be the world's
greatest
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:52 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
Colin Hales
, Solipsist Scientist
Copyright(c) 2006. Colin Hales. All rights reserved.
-
I am a solipsist scientist in that I accept that my mind, which is producing
the dialogue you now read, is the one and only conclusively proven mind and
possibly the only mind. My
in-denial
because none of them realise it.because they are not doing something
they dont know they are not doing.
Please read the whole thing.
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more
1Z
Colin Hales wrote:
So I ask again HOW would we act DIFFERENTLY if we acted as-if MIND
EXISTED. So far
the only difference I SEE is writing a lot of stuff in CAPS.
Brent Meeker
FIRSTLY
Formally we would investigate new physics of underlying reality
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
