Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
FrolicsomeQuipster

On the existence of free will.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This is false when you are speaking about individual plants/animals, which you do. There are plenty of examples where animals of certain species chose death in order to reproduce, male Black Widow being the most popular.

You are shooting yourself in the foot, crizon. You are providing a counterexample that proves the point you are trying to counter. Black widows do this, many animals destruct themselves in order to preserve a species. This is not an act of autonomous free will, but of a natural and automatic process. Most lower animals are compelled simply to procreate. This isn't a value that "they" hold, because there is no "They" to hold a value in the way Objectivists mean it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Are these statements all nonsense, because animals do not ever "choose"? Or is "choose" merely being used in a different context in which it refers to the choice that is the result of the animal's action rather than the unchosen cause of it?

This is precisely what I was confused about. An animal still needs to process information, so a selection between A and B must be made. What does an animal DO then? A medicine can "act" but it certainly does not process any information. I need a word to use to that also implies processing of information for animals. I guess I'm wondering how free-will can come about from a biological point of view. Otherwise, it might be too similar to saying "God gave man free-will". I'm not doubting that there is free-will, but by what means did this characteristic come about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An animal still needs to process information, so a selection between A and B must be made. What does an animal DO then?
There's an invalid assumption there, that animals have "information". In a very metaphorical sense, maybe, just as sunlight and water is information that a tree processes. Or in the same way that cheese is information that the digestive system of a rat processes. The concept of "information" is applicable only to a conceptual consciousness -- what "information" is is the conceptual reduction of a particular representation, such as a sentence or a picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... An animal still needs to process information, so a selection between A and B must be made.

David is right, but if you just change "information" to "stimuli" his complaint will go away. All along, I have been comfortable with animals choosing but not with plants. And reading David's comment prompted me to recognize that there is a difference in the processing systems of plants and animals that might support that. Animals are conscious sentient beings. They perceive their alternatives. They are aware of their alternatives.

The only alternative of a plant is to act when in contact with that which furthers their life (water, nourishment, sunlight, etc.) or to not act when it isn't. Its automatic system is not aware of and cannot evaluate other alternatives like animals can. The automatic system of an animal causes it to select from an array of alternatives of which it is aware at any given moment.

This is why I am ok with saying "the animal chooses" until and unless someone can provide better reasons not to be.

The only important issue attached to this is determinism vs. free will. The question of whether an animal can "choose" is relevant, because it is today common usage on the street, in related industries, and in an array of scientific fields. If we conclude that this usage constitutes an inherent contradiction that implies a backdoor support for determinism, we will face a battle up a hill far steeper than the one to correct the meaning of "selfish." And what could our language or discourse gain from it? Nothing. The better solution is perhaps to leave them be and just warn the determinist inclined that meanings are contextual. In the question, "Do you choose your pet, or does it choose you?", the word choose has two separate and distinct meanings.

I'm not doubting that there is free-will, but by what means did this characteristic come about?

This is not a philosophical question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Animals are conscious sentient beings. They perceive their alternatives. They are aware of their alternatives.
??!What? Alternatives cannot be "perceived". They don't float out in front of you, waiting to be seen. You can arrive at a conclusion by rational means that certain alternatives are available to you, but this is a highly rational and conceptual process, one that animals are incapable of. To even grasp the existence of alternatives is an act of abstraction that not even the mighty chimp can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
??!What? Alternatives cannot be "perceived". They don't float out in front of you, waiting to be seen. You can arrive at a conclusion by rational means that certain alternatives are available to you, but this is a highly rational and conceptual process, one that animals are incapable of. To even grasp the existence of alternatives is an act of abstraction that not even the mighty chimp can do.

My statement that animals perceive the existents that are alternatives is not necessarily a claim that they can perceive the concept "alternative".

Place a plate of food and a bowl of water in front of an animal. It perceives the food and it perceives the water. It cannot eat and drink and do nothing or something else simultaneously. A choice must be made. It can partake of one then the other or just one or neither. The action it takes, if any, will be determined by its nature in the service of its life. But the result of that action will still be that a choice was made among possible alternatives.

It is in fact the proposal I am making that the choices of humans are made with the awareness of the alternatives themselves and of the fact that they can initiate any action in respect to them they want. The choices animals make are made with the awareness of the alternatives themselves but without any awareness of the process that will automatically initiate their action.

Thus the word choice refers in both cases to a process of distinguishing, selecting, preferring, etc. among alternatives, but the nature of the processes are different. So, the word "choice" is being used in two separate contexts that give it slightly different meanings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My statement that animals perceive the existents that are alternatives is not necessarily a claim that they can perceive the concept "alternative".
That misunderstands the nature of an alternative. Alternatives are actions and they are hypothetical so they cannot be perceived -- they are actions in the future. A simple example should make this clear. A man who has a stick in his hand may realize that he has some alternatives. He may keep the stick, or he may throw the stick. It's one and the same entity, and the action itself, keeping or throwing, cannot be perceived until it has been actualized; and that implies that the choice has been made and carried out. Because of man's conceptual faculty, he can imagine doing one thing versus doing another. This is what animals cannot do.

The concept of choosing implies awareness of two or more alternative hypothetical actions in the future, and animals do not have hypothetical knowledge (which is conceptual).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That misunderstands the nature of an alternative. Alternatives are actions and they are hypothetical so they cannot be perceived -- they are actions in the future. A simple example should make this clear. A man who has a stick in his hand may realize that he has some alternatives. He may keep the stick, or he may throw the stick. It's one and the same entity, and the action itself, keeping or throwing, cannot be perceived until it has been actualized; and that implies that the choice has been made and carried out. Because of man's conceptual faculty, he can imagine doing one thing versus doing another. This is what animals cannot do.

The concept of choosing implies awareness of two or more alternative hypothetical actions in the future, and animals do not have hypothetical knowledge (which is conceptual).

This only addresses the subject of alternatives as potential actions in an epistemological context, and I agree with it 100%. Can I not also use the word "alternative" to refer to one of two or more possible objects of an action? Are the sight and smell of the bowl of water and the plate of food not two components of the animal's perception, only one of which will be acted upon as programmed by its nature?

My primary question is about how we describe the resulting event we experience when the animal drinks from the bowl of water instead of eating from the plate of food. Are statements that the animal "chooses", "prefers", "selects", "wants", or "decides for" one instead of the other strictly metaphorical? Or are they merely contextually distinct from the same statement about a human initiated event? Or are they invalid usage in all instances. Or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My primary question is about how we describe the resulting event we experience when the animal drinks from the bowl of water instead of eating from the plate of food. Are statements that the animal "chooses", "prefers", "selects", "wants", or "decides for" one instead of the other strictly metaphorical? Or are they merely contextually distinct from the same statement about a human initiated event?
You can say, simply, that the animal drinks the water and doesn't eat the food or run around in circles or anything else that you, as a person, could imagine doing. You can also say a bit more about what fact cases that action, for example it might be that it's really hot and the animal's survival mechanism causes this action. What I object to is imputing volitional concepts to automatic animal actions. I understand that it can be hard to come up with a correct way of expressing the situation: I just want to focus on the basic facts that pertain to choosing alternatives. Which is that "choosing an alternative" is volitional and conceptual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are these statements all nonsense, because animals do not ever "choose"?

I think David has answered your question but, yes: animals do not have a choice in the way they act, they always act in furtherance of their lives. To demonstrate this to yourself, don't put out two plates of food for the dog (the dog would happily eat both), rather put out a plate of food and a plate of poison. The dog will act in the only way it can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how a Lion has anything to do with it.

Read the second thread that I linked to previously, it is quite amusing.

Assuming you mean life in the common sense as "not-dead", then a male black widow chooses not to further his life because his offspring has a better chance of survival when he does so. The chances for him finding a second mate without dying in process are probably very slim so chooses to give the nutrition in his body to the female. [emphasis added]

You are already presupposing "choice", the fact is animals have no choice, they always act in one direction: in accordance with their identities, toward life.

A black widow has an identity that determines how it will act.

The traits and patterns animals have developed all have the goal to procreate and staying alive is simply a condition that is often needed to do so, but it is also evident that if staying alive lowers the chance to procreate, it is abandoned in order to procreate.

Nope, you've got things backwards, the goal of animals is to stay alive, the ones who are best at accomplishing that goal procreate the most.

And "staying alive" is not "often needed" in order to procreate, it is an absolute necessity, you must be alive in order to procreate.

And saying that "staying alive lowers the chance to procreate", completely stands evolution on its head. Please read the first thread I linked to previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can say, simply, that the animal drinks the water and doesn't eat the food or run around in circles or anything else that you, as a person, could imagine doing. You can also say a bit more about what fact cases that action, for example it might be that it's really hot and the animal's survival mechanism causes this action. What I object to is imputing volitional concepts to automatic animal actions. I understand that it can be hard to come up with a correct way of expressing the situation: I just want to focus on the basic facts that pertain to choosing alternatives. Which is that "choosing an alternative" is volitional and conceptual.

OK, I am ready to summarize my conclusions from this discussion. The awkwardness in your answer about how to describe the event in question just solidifies my position further. It is that all Objectivists have a firm grip on the fact that animals and plants are not volitional, or they would not qualify to be called Objectivists. A multitude of non-Objectivists are equally committed to that fact. That notwithstanding, I assert that an overwhelming majority of those who know that persist in engaging in contextual or metaphorical language that personifies the actions of animals and plants as if there were no distinction between volition and instinct. "This plant likes lots of water" ... That plant hates sunlight" ... "given a choice between tuna or beef, my cat will choose the tuna every time" ... or this melange of volitional/instinctual choices:

Related biology news :

1. Female pronghorns choose mate based on substance as well as show

2. T for two: Scientists show how immune system chooses best way to fight infection

3. Many couples choose to donate surplus embryos for stem cell research

4. Genes and biomarkers that allow doctors to choose the right therapy for the right patient

5. Why do oysters choose to live where they could be eaten?

from: http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/When-mice-choose-mates--experience-counts-2465-1/

We do this because volition and instinct are both invisible and taken for granted. Observing a cat or dog opting for one food over another is just like watching a child do the same thing. So many actions of animals mirror our own that most of us treat animals as members of an extended family. Using borrowed descriptions of human actions for animals is universally a common practice. And, until and unless someone relies on such borrowed usage to assert human instincts or animal volition in a philosophical debate, that practice is intellectually harmless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That notwithstanding, I assert that an overwhelming majority of those who know that persist in engaging in contextual or metaphorical language that personifies the actions of animals and plants as if there were no distinction between volition and instinct.
So then you could just as easily speak literally truthfully and not imply that plants or animals choose or want or reason or any of the myriad anthropomorphic things that the masses say, right? The choice to talk that way has to be driven by an urge to use the same modes of thinking and speaking that the masses in general use. It really only becomes important when you start talking about those things that distinguish man from other living things, for example when you talk of our conceptual faculty or free will. As long as you aren't talking about the things that distinguish man from beast or plant, there probably is no immediate harm in talking metaphorically and imprecisely.

As an intellectual habit, I simply encourage people to say "A is A", and not "A usually tends to be A".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

islander:

Colloquialisms can usually be forgiven in regular parlance depending on the specific context of the conversation. (Of course if you are discussing whether plants have free will, then obviously anthropomorphism cannot be allowed).

But on this forum, where we discuss philosophy, the nature of man and the existence of free will, precision is absolutely required.

As to the numbered headlines, 3 and 4 are perfectly fine and I find the rest extremely dubious.

For instance, take #5: Why do oysters choose to live where they could be eaten?

If this is the headline of a story in a newspaper, I would find it duplicitously inaccurate, worthy of a talking-to by the editor or a letter to the editor and I, as editor, would start looking for a replacement reporter, preferably one with a brain.

It changes the whole focus of the story to an invalid question or hypothesis which will only act to disable the actual search for truth.

If it is written instead as: Why do oysters live where they could be eaten?, a valid question is asked which leads to more questions, enabling the search for truth.

If the original headline is the title of a scholarly paper written by a scientist, it is not only inaccurate but false and I should think a fireable offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To even grasp the existence of alternatives is an act of abstraction that not even the mighty chimp can do.

Wouldn't the tools that chimps create in order to acquire food require some grasp of alternatives? A chimp may see a twig, but that stimulus is certainly not enough to make the chimp use the tool in order to access hard to reach termites.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't the tools that chimps create in order to acquire food require some grasp of alternatives? A chimp may see a twig, but that stimulus is certainly not enough to make the chimp use the tool in order to access hard to reach termites.
We don't know how to interpret that behavior, but it certainly doesn't constitute evidence of a conceptual faculty. Chimps do lots of random crap, some good and some bad. They can learn. If a few chimps randomly stick twigs into termite mounds and end up with lunch, they will associate the two acts and probably do it again. And now you have the basis for general learning (just like with pigeons or mice). What's interesting about chimps is that they good learners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I'm wondering how free-will can come about from a biological point of view. Otherwise, it might be too similar to saying "God gave man free-will". I'm not doubting that there is free-will, but by what means did this characteristic come about?

Scientifically, free will came about due to natural selection which made possible the development of a conceptual mind -- I mean, unless you can show that some aliens or some other process brought it about by interfering with the natural biological development of man.

And I think that the idea that animals and other living beings always goes towards its salvation can be taken rationalistically. It is not as if the male black widow spider knows ahead of time that if it acts to get some, then it will wind up dead. Bees don't know that either, and their sexual parts explode when having sex. The fact that the species still exists shows that natural selection has worked for that species. It doesn't necessarily mean that each individual of a species will act to further its own life or will act to further the life of the species -- because it doesn't have that in mind at all, since it doesn't have a conceptual consciousness. For the most part, a given individual living being will act to preserve its life, but this does not mean that it will never do something to its own detriment. I think, in a sense, the attitude that some animals do things that results in their own death is trying to ascribe a human consciousness to them, and also omniscience. Plants and animals don't really have a long-term outlook on life, because that requires a conceptual consciousness. I mean, maybe to the male black widow spider, having sex is the greatest thing in the world, and it has no awareness even that it is being eaten, since it doesn't fight back.

The point is not to ascribe human motivations to plants and animals. Yes, sometimes a plant or an animal will wind up dying because it did something, and if it had a conceptual consciousness it could choose not to take that action; but it isn't like that, so it doesn't have anything in mind. But certainly, insofar as it can act, it acts to preserve itself or its values, though it may not always succeed. Man, on the other hand, can actually choose to pursue that which is not in his best long-term interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think, in a sense, the attitude that some animals do things that results in their own death is trying to ascribe a human consciousness to them, and also omniscience.

Thomas, how exactly is this attitude trying to ascribe human consciousness and omniscience to these animals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thomas, how exactly is this attitude trying to ascribe human consciousness and omniscience to these animals?

Well, the implication in some posts is that if a living being always pursued the sustaining of its own life, then it would never do stupid things like trying to have sex with a female spider that is going to eat him. We can see that this is going to happen because it is the nature of a female black widow spider to eat while having sex; but the male spider has no clue about this. Living beings act to survive in their circumstance to the best of their ability, but they don't have a human consciousness, and the automatic survival aspects of their nature does not grant them omniscience in dealing with circumstances. Each living being is limited because it has an identity, and this limit is shown most thoroughly in it dieing when its automatic nature is not sufficient to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living beings act to survive in their circumstance to the best of their ability, but they don't have a human consciousness, and the automatic survival aspects of their nature does not grant them omniscience in dealing with circumstances.

Living beings appear to act to survive to the best of their ability in some but not all circumstances. The mating behaviour of praying mantises and redback spiders is clear evidence of this. Animal behaviour has been shaped by the forces of natural selection over millions of years. Animals do what they do because their ancestors reproduced and endowed their progeny with those similar traits that facilitated their own reproduction. Yes those traits facilitate the survival of that organism for a limited amount of time but if in certain circumstances an animals reproduction is facilitated by its destruction their is no reason why it will act not to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I will re-word that final sentence:

Yes, those traits facilitate the survival of that organism for a limited amount of time but if in certain circumstances an organisms reproduction is facilitated by its destruction their is no reason why it will not in such a manner as to destroy itself, thus ensuring its genes are passed on to the next generation, which what natural selection has designed all organisms to do.

Edited by Extrication

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry I will re-word that final sentence:

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say. Sounds like you might be saying that reproduction is the standard of life rather than saying living their life is the standard. However, I don't see any difference between, say, a spider pursuing a fly for a meal and then getting eaten by a lizard in the process versus a spider pursuing sex as a value and then getting eaten by his mate in the process. The point is that living beings other than man pursue values that are good for them qua individual, but this doesn't guarantee their continued survival. Continuation of the gene pool is rejected by Objectivism as the natural biological standard for living beings. Provided a living being can reproduce his species will continue (within limits), but this is not the goal of living beings -- the goal is to survive qua individual within the scope of their automatic responses to stimuli. These automatic responses are brought about via natural selection within a biological niche that the living being has become adapted to over long periods of time.

The most notable exception is man, since his conceptual consciousness makes it possible for him to survive in a wider range of circumstances because he can think long-range and conceptualize during his life-time and can apply his explicit knowledge to a wider range of circumstances -- even living in space where there are no biological values for him to live off of. But this exception of having an automatic survival mode of living came about via natural selection, so that man can live just about anywhere on earth and beyond, provided he thinks about it ahead of time.

In other words, free will and reason is an advantage, provided a man understands that life is the standard and that man's life in particular is the proper guide for living his own life volitionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that "volition" or "free will" is of no consequence to Objectivism, and I believe reason dictates that free will simply does not exist. My argument is as follows:

First, it is obvious that we experience the feeling of having free will. This can be explained simply: a system cannot know its future state without going through the intermediate states. The brain cannot model itself any faster than it can actually process information. In our lives we create options, possible future courses of action, and analyze each one as a possibility, eventually arriving at a decision about what to do at any particular time. This doesn't have to be well reasoned, in fact it often isn't. However we still make a decision about what to do. This explains neatly why we will always experience free will, and why it is a necessary element of any consciousness.

Second, physical systems (which include the brain), are governed by the laws of physics. That is all. Everything in the universe is based on matter, energy, space, and time. Even if you wished to include elements we do not yet know, such as soul-stuff or what have you, it still must obey rules which determine its behavior explicitly. This results logically in determinism.

Finally, free will is a self-contradictory concept. Free will is the ability to make a decision that is not controlled entirely by prior events and the current state of things. This means that it follows no real rules, that it can behave unpredictably (even more than subatomic particles, for free will can't even be constrained by a probability function). It is random. Free will as an idea is based, at its core, on some level of randomness in the operation of the human mind when coming to conclusions and making decisions. Is that really any better than something totally controlled by the laws of physics?

The argument for why volition is axiomatic is dependent on it being impossible to rationally refute. The argument is essentially that reason requires volition in order to be valid. Why is that the case? Reason must only conform to reality to be valid, it must only follow the rules of logic. How does one know, whether volition exists or not, that one has come to a rational conclusion? They examine all of their assumptions, their conclusions, etc. and make sure that there are no contradictions and that everything they know has been integrated. They may even ask others to check their reasoning to make sure they are not overlooking anything. And at that point, they can rest fairly confident that they are thinking rationally, though they must continually reassess in order to make sure that holds true. Now, where does free will actually play a role there? Why is it necessary? Can't I just as easily say "I have to the best of my ability that I know of integrated all my knowledge, checked for all facts, and made sure there are no contradictions" if there is no free will as if there is? And can't I ask someone else to check my reasoning to make sure it is valid? What makes randomness necessary in that process?

I see no reason why a deterministic viewpoint conflicts with Objectivism anywhere else. You still must check your facts as best you know how to in order to ensure you are thinking rationally. You still can use the same checking mechanisms. Man is still a rational animal that thinks on the level of concepts, and because they can make mistakes in reasoning still must rationally check to make sure they aren't making those mistakes (no one said that just because the mind is deterministic means it necessarily outputs only true or valid ideas and concepts, far from it). He still must focus and use reason to survive, leading to the various virtues, and the ultimate result that the initiation of force is anti-human-life. That result means that it is logically legitimate for people to use force against aggressors, since the aggressor is acting for death anyway. This still leads to the same principles in politics and art. Nothing changes, so far as I can tell.

The only thing that changes in the entire Objectivist system is that it is now in alignment with itself. Its final contradiction is resolved. Peikoff in OPAR argues that the mind is based in the brain which is a physical system, and it doesn't matter if science eventually can deconstruct all mental processes into their physical counterparts, it does not invalidate the mental processes. If Objectivism is in no way opposed to the mind being based on solely physical processes controlled by the laws of physics, then an advocacy of the existence free will is not a legitimate position for it to hold. The only legitimate way one may still uphold volition or "free" will is if one reduces it simply to "will", and volition to "coming to a conclusion or selection from a number of seemingly-possible options (seeming possible only when you have not had time to work through the necessary processes of selection yet)." I do not see any conflict with Objectivism with my position. My guess as to why Rand and Peikoff and most Objectivists have not let go of this contradiction is because the concept of free will is too near and dear to Western Civilizaiton's heart to be eliminated as a contradiction to itself and to our understanding of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that "volition" or "free will" is of no consequence to Objectivism, and I believe reason dictates that free will simply does not exist. My argument is as follows:

You contradict yourself throughout your long reply, which you chose to publish on this forum, because volition and free will are directly observed in one's own consciousness -- in other words you are directly contradicting a fact of existence.

Furthermore, you are being rationalistic, giving arguments that many others have given regarding the brain being physical. That we have free will and that you wrote what you wrote out of your own free will is not really open to question because it is axiomatic. The awareness of free will -- of making decisions -- is not a feeling, but rather a direct introspection of the nature of your consciousness.

If you decide to reply, I recommend you make a better effort to conform your mind to reality, which must be done volitionally, because reason does not function automatically, as is evident in your contradictory reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You contradict yourself throughout your long reply, which you chose to publish on this forum, because volition and free will are directly observed in one's own consciousness -- in other words you are directly contradicting a fact of existence.

Furthermore, you are being rationalistic, giving arguments that many others have given regarding the brain being physical. That we have free will and that you wrote what you wrote out of your own free will is not really open to question because it is axiomatic. The awareness of free will -- of making decisions -- is not a feeling, but rather a direct introspection of the nature of your consciousness.

If you decide to reply, I recommend you make a better effort to conform your mind to reality, which must be done volitionally, because reason does not function automatically, as is evident in your contradictory reply.

This is a problem I have often seen with Objectivists. Instead of actually addressing any of my points, you simply write it off as irrational and a result of me not exerting an effort to "conform [my] mind to reality." You simply state, without explanation, that volition is axiomatic. Why is that so? I explained that the process by which you verify the rationality of your conclusions is a process that must occur regardless of how you have free will or not, see my original post for the details (paragraph 5). My point was that it can occur whether there is free will or not. You cannot state that free will is axiomatic without making an argument for it. My point is that it can be logically denied, and therefore is not axiomatic (certainly not like the main three axioms of Objectivism, which cannot be logically denied). I also explained how the appearance and experience of free will is a necessary result of the nature of every computational system, regardless of form. Again, I refer you back to my previous post, paragraph 2.

If you are so inclined, explain why you cannot verify rationality without free will, and why our experience of free will cannot be explained by the nature of our minds as computational systems, as well as my other points if you wish. Simply declaring someone to be irrational without actually pointing out why and how their claims are actually irrational. If someone tries to refute your position, simply saying "I'm right so you must be wrong" doesn't seem to be a rational response.

Share this post


Link to post
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...