Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Unknowability

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A difference that exists between forming concepts of concrete particulars and concepts of consciousness is one omits cardinally specified while the other omits on the ordinal axis. A ball and block can have their specifications delineated along size, material, weight etc. How is this done with volition, or freedom? One can speak of degrees of freedom, in the end, one is either free, or is not.

I was trying to address the OP's concern about prediction/probability vs. exactness as relates to Quantum Mechanics.

 

I was trying to find examples to demonstrate that when we construct models of what we are observing, the models exist, and cannot be swapped-out on a one-for-one basis with the observation.  This happens at both the micro level of Quantum Mechanics and the macro level of every day life.  In my profession, I often times need to go out and measure existing buildings, or parts of buildings.  I take a tape measurer, sometimes a flashlight, make hand sketches on paper with a pen, write down the measurements, take photos, etc. and then take them back to the office and draw them in CAD.  The sketches and CAD drawings are not the building - they are models of the building projected orthographically.  This same holds true for when creating drawings, specifications and calculations for new buildings.  Building, when they are actually constructed, are not a one-for-one match with the drawings.  You have to define a level of tolerance that is acceptable.

 

At the Quantum Level, because we are trying to measure/model what is happing to individual photons, electrons, (and even smaller particles), this same rule not only true, but doubled.  We can't just shine a flashlight on particles and hold a tape measurer to them.  We would be impacting that which we are trying to observe to an unacceptable level.  Instead, we start with constructing models and then finding ways to test/measure the outcome to see if we are on the right track.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because by 'only two', it means that the entity still maintains identity. Something that could literally do anything, at any moment, is not real. It lacks identity. I'm saying that you're offering a false alternative, either something acts in one and only one way or it acts in any way and has no identity. If that's the alternative then of course you choose the alternative that's consistent with identity, but that's not the only alternative. This formulation of causality, that an entity must act in one way and one way only under the same circumstances, just doesn't follow from the law of identity. I'm not saying it's not true, with respect to the material world, I'm just saying it's not axiomatic or a corollary of an axiom.

Can you give an example of entity A that may do one of two actions in context X? I don't mean an example of metaphysical possibility where entity A may act in several ways depending on the context. I'm thinking that if an entity can act in multiple ways in identical contexts, then there is no way to determine what any entity at all would do. Its identity would be random and metaphysically probabilistic since context would be insufficient to say what an entity will do. If say, in a context of falling down a hill, a boulder may keep rolling, or suddenly stop rolling, you have no way to say what a boulder's identity is. An entity cannot act in a way different from its identity, meaning it will only act in one way. The causality flows differently for computations and methods, but even then, at any particular moment, those methods will be used in only one way: according to the identity of the entity and its way of doing computations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to address the OP's concern about prediction/probability vs. exactness as relates to Quantum Mechanics.

 

I was trying to find examples to demonstrate that when we construct models of what we are observing, the models exist, and cannot be swapped-out on a one-for-one basis with the observation.  This happens at both the micro level of Quantum Mechanics and the macro level of every day life.  In my profession, I often times need to go out and measure existing buildings, or parts of buildings.  I take a tape measurer, sometimes a flashlight, make hand sketches on paper with a pen, write down the measurements, take photos, etc. and then take them back to the office and draw them in CAD.  The sketches and CAD drawings are not the building - they are models of the building projected orthographically.  This same holds true for when creating drawings, specifications and calculations for new buildings.  Building, when they are actually constructed, are not a one-for-one match with the drawings.  You have to define a level of tolerance that is acceptable.

 

At the Quantum Level, because we are trying to measure/model what is happing to individual photons, electrons, (and even smaller particles), this same rule not only true, but doubled.  We can't just shine a flashlight on particles and hold a tape measurer to them.  We would be impacting that which we are trying to observe to an unacceptable level.  Instead, we start with constructing models and then finding ways to test/measure the outcome to see if we are on the right track.

Ah. The drift of the thread had moved more toward volition 

 

Let's touch base on measuring for a moment. We use rulers (scales demarcated in fractions or decimals of inches or millimeters), tape measures and other instruments for identifying units of length. Weight is measured with balance beams and other devices developed for exacting weights. As the sciences developed, various instruments have been developed for measuring various attributes, such as the galvanometer, voltmeter, oscillators, etc., at each step along the way. There is a disconnect in my mind when the quantum level is accessed. Most of the models that I've heard about are computerized and the test/measures seem to be based on formulas that are tweaked to try to correspond with the outcomes or expectations.

 

I can relate to your architectural reference, having spent most of my profession drafting, and later, generating CAD models for various automotive components.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you give an example of entity A that may do one of two actions in context X? I don't mean an example of metaphysical possibility where entity A may act in several ways depending on the context. I'm thinking that if an entity can act in multiple ways in identical contexts, then there is no way to determine what any entity at all would do. Its identity would be random and metaphysically probabilistic since context would be insufficient to say what an entity will do. If say, in a context of falling down a hill, a boulder may keep rolling, or suddenly stop rolling, you have no way to say what a boulder's identity is. An entity cannot act in a way different from its identity, meaning it will only act in one way. The causality flows differently for computations and methods, but even then, at any particular moment, those methods will be used in only one way: according to the identity of the entity and its way of doing computations.

 

A human, possessing the faculty of consciousness, can choose to focus or not to focus in context X. If man can choose to focus or not to focus, it doesn't follow that man has no identity. His identity is to choose. 

Edited by CriticalThinker2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the models that I've heard about are computerized and the test/measures seem to be based on formulas that are tweaked to try to correspond with the outcomes or expectations.

I cannot comment on any specific instance that some test was tweaked to correspond with expectations.  But one really big problem, IMHO, is that mathematical foundationalism and QM are very negatively influenced by Kant's position that there is a un-bridgeable separation between knowing of a thing and knowing a thing in itself - so all we are left with is math and models.  Since reality is fundamentally and paradoxically unknowable what else can we do?  I would say, sadly, that most modern QM physicists and mathematicians aren't even aware that they've adopted dialectic oppositional logic.

 

Regarding freedom vs. non-freedom or choice vs. non-choice, the way to address this is to reject the oppositional logic in the first place.  Concepts are open ended, and  while we are capable of making objective statements (and constructing objective models) about such things as choice, we are not capable of making omniscient, all encompassing statements.  We can never exhaustively state or write down all we know, or learn all that there is to learn.  To just state that "choice exists" or "choice doesn't exist", pick one, is tantamount to offering little more than ostensive definition.

 

While I agree that choice does exist, does an infant have choice?  If you learn over his crib and jiggle a toy, does an infant make a choice to look at it, grab it and stick it in his mouth?  Does a child make a choice to giggle when you jostle him on your knee?  And at what point do we as a society determine that a young person is held accountable for his choices?  If a person in the early stages of Alzheimer's, with only occasional episodes, do we allow him to continue to drive his car?  I don't doubt that we can reach objective answers regarding these questions (and I don't want to debate them specifically in this post).   But any concept, drawings, calculations, measurements, observation, definitions are open ended.  EDIT:  And concepts, measurements, etc. DO EXIST in themselves.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot comment on any specific instance that some test was tweaked to correspond with expectations.  But one really big problem, IMHO, is that mathematical foundationalism and QM are very negatively influenced by Kant's position that there is a un-bridgeable separation between knowing of a thing and knowing a thing in itself - so all we are left with is math and models.  Since reality is fundamentally and paradoxically unknowable what else can we do?  I would say, sadly, that most modern QM physicists and mathematicians aren't even aware that they've adopted dialectic oppositional logic.

 

Regarding freedom vs. non-freedom or choice vs. non-choice, the way to address this is to reject the oppositional logic in the first place.  Concepts are open ended, and  while we are capable of making objective statements (and constructing objective models) about such things as choice, we are not capable of making omniscient, all encompassing statements.  We can never exhaustively state or write down all we know, or learn all that there is to learn.  To just state that "choice exists" or "choice doesn't exist", pick one, is tantamount to offering little more than ostensive definition.

 

While I agree that choice does exist, does an infant have choice?  If you learn over his crib and jiggle a toy, does an infant make a choice to look at it, grab it and stick it in his mouth?  Does a child make a choice to giggle when you jostle him on your knee?  And at what point do we as a society determine that a young person is held accountable for his choices?  If a person in the early stages of Alzheimer's, with only occasional episodes, do we allow him to continue to drive his car?  I don't doubt that we can reach objective answers regarding these questions (and I don't want to debate them specifically in this post).   But any concept, drawings, calculations, measurements, observation, definitions are open ended.  EDIT:  And concepts, measurements, etc. DO EXIST in themselves.

I agree with much of what you wrote in the first paragraph, I have several issues with the second, and several thoughts on the third. Let's not pursue them in this thread though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A human, possessing the faculty of consciousness, can choose to focus or not to focus in context X. If man can choose to focus or not to focus, it doesn't follow that man has no identity. His identity is to choose. 

A choice to focus still follows a methodology implicitly so that method is always followed, and if the same context repeated, you'd repeat your choice. It is metaphysically possible to make a different selection, and it doesn't violate volition one bit to say that the methodology only leads to one choice every time. The process is not random. The choice to focus is not random. If you are employing a method to make an argument, not a random assortment of propositions, your argument will only come out one way. Essentially, I'm saying that if we say MULTIPLE courses of events may happen in an identical context caused by the same entity, we give up on the law of identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A choice to focus still follows a methodology implicitly so that method is always followed, and if the same context repeated, you'd repeat your choice. It is metaphysically possible to make a different selection, and it doesn't violate volition one bit to say that the methodology only leads to one choice every time. 

 

Could you expand on this point more? What do you mean by 'methodology'? This statement: "It is metaphysically possible to make a different selection, and it doesn't violate volition one bit to say that methodology only leads to one choice every time." It sounds to me like you're saying, it's possible that a different selection could be made under the same circumstances but the same circumstances lead to the same selection every time, contradicting the first part of the sentence with the second part. What is the concept of choice, if one always makes the same choice under the same circumstances. That's just another way of saying, the choice you make is determined by the circumstances. It's not a choice at all.

 

 

 

Essentially, I'm saying that if we say MULTIPLE courses of events may happen in an identical context caused by the same entity, we give up on the law of identity.

 

Why? If an entity can act in two possible ways, under the same circumstances, it is still a finite entity. There are still limits to what it can and cannot do. It IS something.

Edited by CriticalThinker2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CT2000,

Proper reasoning, guided by logic, leads to correct conclusions. Does that mean choosing to guide ones reasoning by logic guarantee the correct conclusion will be reached in each and every attempt?

 

In making a choice, factors deemed to be relevant can be considered. True, the same factors considered to be relevant should lead to the same choice, but what factor(s) govern which factors, if any, get considered, if not choice?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CT2000,

Proper reasoning, guided by logic, leads to correct conclusions. Does that mean choosing to guide ones reasoning by logic guarantee the correct conclusion will be reached in each and every attempt?

 

No, I'd say definitely not.

 

 

 

In making a choice, factors deemed to be relevant can be considered. True, the same factors considered to be relevant should lead to the same choice, but what factor(s) govern which factors, if any, get considered, if not choice?

 

Right, I see now what Louie was talking about with respect to method, which would make his sentence not a contradiction. That was my misunderstanding. Method is not something I've thought about enough to discuss intelligently. It seems to me like it's beside the point, though. Even if you thought the method was mechanistically determined, we're only one step removed from the question. Which is, can man under the same circumstances act in a different way, ie does he have the ability to choose. Whether the choice is regarding method, or if it's more fundamental like the choice to focus or not, it doesn't seem to change the issues involved (causality, identity, and choice).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'd say definitely not.

 

 

Right, I see now what Louie was talking about with respect to method, which would make his sentence not a contradiction. That was my misunderstanding. Method is not something I've thought about enough to discuss intelligently. It seems to me like it's beside the point, though. Even if you thought the method was mechanistically determined, we're only one step removed from the question. Which is, can man under the same circumstances act in a different way, ie does he have the ability to choose. Whether the choice is regarding method, or if it's more fundamental like the choice to focus or not, it doesn't seem to change the issues involved (causality, identity, and choice).

[C]an man under the same circumstances act in a different way, i.e.,  does he have the ability to choose?

It is both axiomatic and self-evident. It is something that can only be validated, not proven. Both morality and justice presuppose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Both morality and justice presuppose it.

 

No, they don't.  Even if I knew that the action of typing this post out had been predetermined since before I was born, I would still not know what I would do tomorrow because I don't know today what I may know tomorrow.

 

So long as omniscience is impossible (not only to man; to any consciousness, anywhere), there will always be something that I don't know; so long as that's true, I can't know what I may or may not do in the future.

 

THAT is necessary for morality and politics.  Making this a metaphysical issue, rather than epistemological, is not.

 

That is, to say that I "could metaphysically do otherwise" is not required to say that I "chose," as a shorthand reference to things which cannot be known in advance- in the same way and for the same reasons that Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle refers to exactly such unpredictability in metaphysically-deterministic particles.

 

I believe this must be true, for reasons alluded to earlier.  :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying that you're offering a false alternative, either something acts in one and only one way or it acts in any way and has no identity.

 

Either an entity's actions are determined, or they are not.  Live long and prosper.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they don't.  Even if I knew that the action of typing this post out had been predetermined since before I was born, I would still not know what I would do tomorrow because I don't know today what I may know tomorrow.

 

So long as omniscience is impossible (not only to man; to any consciousness, anywhere), there will always be something that I don't know; so long as that's true, I can't know what I may or may not do in the future.

 

THAT is necessary for morality and politics.  Making this a metaphysical issue, rather than epistemological, is not.

 

That is, to say that I "could metaphysically do otherwise" is not required to say that I "chose," as a shorthand reference to things which cannot be known in advance- in the same way and for the same reasons that Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle refers to exactly such unpredictability in metaphysically-deterministic particles.

 

I believe this must be true, for reasons alluded to earlier.  :thumbsup:

If an individual uses a gun in the commission of a felony, whether he shoots the victim or not, is he guilty of choosing to do so, or was it an unavoidable date with destiny? Are the courts and jails simply products of deterministic interactions of swirling matter over the eons?

 

Man has to discover what is necessary for his life. Man also has to discover the best political structure to allow himself to act on his discoveries. This is not a matter of ignorance vs. omniscience, rather it is our method of learning.

 

The fact that you disagree with me and offer counterpoints demonstrates to some degree that you acknowledge a degree of choice in yourself, an ability to discern truth from falsehood and choose truth over falsehood, or that I have the freedom to be persuaded by your argument and choose to change my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q. If your car's alternator konks out, how would that change the way your car acts?

A. Well, it would run until the battery is drained.

 

Q.  If your left leg were amputated, how would this change your mobility?

A.  Well, I'd probably need crutches, or a prosthetic, or a wheel chair.

 

Q.  If you determine that you don't have free will, how would this change the way you act?

A.  Not at all!

 

Q.  If you determine that you do have freewill, how would this change the way you act?

A.  Not at all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? If an entity can act in two possible ways, under the same circumstances, it is still a finite entity. There are still limits to what it can and cannot do. It IS something.

I'm working on a post to detail my idea better. For now though, I'm not talking about the possible ways an entity can act, but how an entity will act depending on the context. An entity will act in only one way. If an entity will vary how it acts in a specific context, even if the possibilities are finite, it is essentially random, indeterminate, and unknowable no matter how hard you try. How would you be able to learn anything at all if there is no way to determine which entities have "hidden" identity? All I know to appeal to is randomness - and then we're left with transforming the Uncertainty Principle into the pop science view that truth itself is never more than probability.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm working on a post to detail my idea better. For now though, I'm not talking about the possible ways an entity can act, but how an entity will act depending on the context. An entity will act in only one way. If an entity will vary how it acts in a specific context, even if the possibilities are finite, it is essentially random, indeterminate, and unknowable no matter how hard you try.

 

What do 'random, indeterminate, and unknowable' mean in this context? With respect to 'random', I think you're taking that concept out of context. I've been thinking a lot about probability lately, and with respect to volition, Rand had the following to say (with which I agree):

 

"Because man has free will, no human choice—and no phenomenon which is a product of human choice—is metaphysically necessary. In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so: he could have chosen otherwise.

Choice, however, is not chance. Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation."

 

What does unknowable mean here? To know something is to know it's identity. So long as an entity has identity, it is knowable. That doesn't mean you will know how the entity will act in a given circumstance (will man choose to focus or not?), but the entity's identity is still knowable.

 

 

How would you be able to learn anything at all if there is no way to determine which entities have "hidden" identity? All I know to appeal to is randomness - and then we're left with transforming the Uncertainty Principle into the pop science view that truth itself is never more than probability.

 

Well wouldn't you just apply the knowledge you have, just like every other piece of knowledge? In other words, if the entity does not have a faculty of consciousness, deterministic causality applies. It's not a mystery which entities are alive, let alone conscious.

 

In any event, I look forward to your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either an entity's actions are determined, or they are not.  Live long and prosper.

 

OK... that's the law of excluded middle. That's true but I don't see how it justifies the two alternatives you presented, which were, either an entity acts in one way and one way only under a given set of circumstances, or it acts in ANY way under a given set of circumstances. The third alternative, that an entity's potential actions under a given set of circumstances are greater than 1 but still finite, is not ruled out by LEM. Since an entity falling under the third alternative would be 'not determined', LEM actually excludes the second option, that an entity can act in any way, which is a rejection of identity anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The third alternative, that an entity's potential actions under a given set of circumstances are greater than 1 but still finite, is not ruled out by LEM.

 

What Eiuol said.

 

Are the courts and jails simply products of deterministic interactions of swirling matter over the eons?

Does it matter?

 

The fact that you disagree with me and offer counterpoints demonstrates to some degree that you acknowledge a degree of choice in yourself, an ability to discern truth from falsehood and choose truth over falsehood, or that I have the freedom to be persuaded by your argument and choose to change my mind.

 

Absolutely; in the sense that I do not automatically know truth from falsehood (that requires effort) and neither do I know what you (or even I) will ultimately conclude about this matter, nor to what extent my actions will influence that.  I'm not disputing that man can learn.  And when I do know that my actions will not affect someone else's conclusions, in advance, then I don't waste my time on them. 

 

You're essentially right, except that it's not a matter of metaphysical freedom; it's a matter of my own uncertainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q.  If you determine that you don't have free will, how would this change the way you act?

A.  Not at all!

 

Q.  If you determine that you do have freewill, how would this change the way you act?

A.  Not at all!

Does a mind which is bound by contradiction have no influence on the actions and conclusions one makes?

Does a mind which is free of contradiction conclude one does, or does not have feewill?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 what could possibly show that something in reality is causeless?

 

Nothing. And that's the point. There is not and could never be and will never be any observations that could cast any doubt on causality.

 

Have you read the thread? The objectivist formulation of causality is different than the way causality is generally formulated. Choice is not an exception to causality.

 

Edit: DW, he was making fun of determinism, I think.

Edited by CriticalThinker2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do 'random, indeterminate, and unknowable' mean in this context? With respect to 'random', I think you're taking that concept out of context. I've been thinking a lot about probability lately, and with respect to volition, Rand had the following to say (with which I agree):

 

"Because man has free will, no human choice—and no phenomenon which is a product of human choice—is metaphysically necessary. In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so: he could have chosen otherwise.

Choice, however, is not chance. Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation."

I agree with the quote, too.

 

To start off with, maintaining that choice in the human sense is valid with causality is only rejecting behaviorism, radical behaviorism especially. Stimulus and response as what guides action makes no effort to establish -any- mental processes. No sense of choice really happens since computational processes are ignored for selection anyway. This is valid for rocks rolling, or what you label "physical causation". Not only is there one result, there is only one possible result since no computation happens. Once you add in computation, there are multiple possible results depending on input or starting point. The computation once employed though will only run one way.

For a simple computation, like checking if one object is larger than another, two choices are possible: true or false.  A is being compared to B. The computation is A > B based on object height. If A is 5 inches tall, and B is 2 inches tall, this returns true every time. As long as the computation isn't random, this will always happens, even though a choice is made. The only way it might return false is if the thing doing the computation is broken, or no method at all is used. Even if you add in an "I don't know" choice, -that- choice still follows a definite method. Despite the simplicity here, this is applicable to -any- decision procedure.

Look at a flow chart. Many possibilities! But once you start following it, only ONE choice is valid at each point, unless the choice is random, without a method. No matter how many times you repeat the chart, you'll keep getting the same answer. Imagine if the flow chart was how to diagnose the flu. If you asked the doctor to go through it again, he'd make the same diagnosis. The choices may change if the information available changes, or the method employed changes. If two or more outcomes are possible even if information and method is the same, then there really is no method to privilege one choice over another. As soon as you provide a reason for a new choice, you're still ending up exactly one answer. The presence of an identity requires that only one action WILL happen in a given context. Otherwise, you're saying I might find the doctor saying I have the flu 80% of the time - and not because the doctor learned more.

On a level of abstraction at human action, in terms of ethics and politics, the exact procedures aren't important. All that I really need to know is that the choice itself IS my free will. In particular, it might just be that conceptual thought for whatever reason is so complex that the choice has a feeling and activity to it. Not as an illusion, but the whole process of reasoning IS free will.

If you follow me so far, let me know. If so, I will say some more. As a preliminary, here's a short but interesting video about Nietzsche's thought experiment, the eternal recurrence:

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a level of abstraction at human action, in terms of ethics and politics, the exact procedures aren't important. All that I really need to know is that the choice itself IS my free will. In particular, it might just be that conceptual thought for whatever reason is so complex that the choice has a feeling and activity to it. Not as an illusion, but the whole process of reasoning IS free will.

While I disagree with determinism, I understand why some people make an argument for it. I really do wish, however, that those who choose (heh) to do so wouldn't try to remake the language so that they can claim to argue for "free will."

If a man must make one "choice" due to antecedent factors outside of his control -- one "choice" with nothing else possible to him, which is the substance of your claim, Eiuol -- then you are not describing free will or volition. It would be better to say that you don't believe in free will than to rob the term of its meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I disagree with determinism, I understand why some people make an argument for it. I really do wish, however, that those who choose (heh) to do so wouldn't try to remake the language so that they can claim to argue for "free will.

Here's a summary of my position and thoughts:

1) I do not hold a position of causality in terms of determinism, nondeterminism, or indeterminism. Those aren't the only options. I hold the position causality, and that's it. None of these theories sufficiently deal with computations or methods, at least not without literally advocating dualism a la Binswanger. See http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27779&p=329099

2) I claim that free will IS the act of choosing that occurs in a conscious manner while the whole methodology or decision procedures is happening. Think of how a computer uses logic gates to make decisions. If choices occur as the result of an action potential in my neurons, I'm only saying that most of the time, for conceptual thought especially, the choice among options is entirely mine, that is, fully active and conscious.

3) Nothing at all is free of antecedent factors. If anything were free of antecedent factors, it would violate the law of identity. At the least, being free of antecedent factors means its causal workings are literally random, thus unknowable. Probability and randomness only applies to situations where we don't have time to gather ALL relevant information.

4) There are a set of options available, but if the process of choosing repeated forever for eternity, the same decisions will always be made (see my next big post!)

5) If the logical end of my argument amounts to determinism, point out where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...