Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can man mechanically recreate consciousness?

Rate this topic


LadyAttis

Recommended Posts

I just read in OPAR that AR had, by the end of her life, began to do more research in the field of epistemology, specifically - concept formation and formulating definitions. Leonard Peikoff mentions that she used some of the information from psychology and also mathematics.

Page reference please. I do not think this is in the book you are citing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Could you imagine someone seriously trying to integrate behaviorism with Objectivism?

Let's see...

First, deny the existence of a volitional consciousness, substituting in its place some notion of stimulus-and-response which, given sufficient complexity, creates the illusion of consciousness.

Well, one third of Objectivist metaphysics is the axiom of consciousness. So I guess we can dispense with that. And, of course, if I'm not aware of anything, I can't take existence for granted. And if existence is identity, then identity is out as well. So much for metaphysics.

So if consciousness is not real, then we don't need rules to guide thinking. It's just an automatic process, after all. So we throw out logic. And if we aren't actually aware of an objective reality, then there is no such thing as a faculty to integrate sense data into concepts. There goes reason.

And, when it comes to actions, these are just the response to various stimuli. So we don't need to define and develop a code of principles to guide our choices. Likewise, we can't give out moral blame or praise, since everyone just passively responds to stimuli. So ethics is right out.

Socially, we don't need to recognize the minds of others, since those don't exist. There's no justification, then, for leaving the mind free from physical force. So much for freedom, individual rights and capitalism.

What about art? Well, not much need to concretize one's metaphysics or experience one's sense of life (those being consciousness-related thingies). Of course Ayn Rand's whole exposition on the connection between freewill and Romantic art must be wrong, too.

So let's see how well I did:

No metaphysics, no epistemology, no reason, no ethics, no capitalism, no Romantic art.

Boy, I didn't do too well, did I? Maybe they are slightly incompatible after all... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you imagine someone seriously trying to integrate behaviorism with Objectivism?

...

So let's see how well I did:

No metaphysics, no epistemology, no reason, no ethics, no capitalism, no Romantic art.

Boy, I didn't do too well, did I?

Don't be too hard on yourself. You were just determined to do this. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bowzer is a perceptive guy. He did his time in the cognitive sciences. :D

Thanks, Stephen! I can appreciate the analogy to "doing time" in jail because that's what I feel the cognitive sciences are (albeit a mental one). I mean, just look at what a couple of college psychology courses can do to a person!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually no physicist has ever said GR/SR and QM/QED/QCD[family of quantum theories] were ever wrong. I would like you to post the references to that. Not even David Bohm, which he was a bit off in my opinion, never ever said those two theories were wrong. We use QED[Quantum Electrodynamics] everyday in circuitry and etc. I know this especially since I'm a CompSci Major. You really really painted a very broad and skewed image of physics, sir. I would suggest you get your references in order. Because I consider not only what you said to be slanderous to my person but slanderous to the body of work in physics. Stand and deliver.

My first reference are my physics classes.

If you want me to be specific, then try, from the laws of classical physics, to derive the equation which expresses the radiation of a black body. If you do it for small wavelengths, you will get the equation telling you that the radiation approaches infinity. Experiments suggest that is incorrect.

Then apply the rules of the quantuum harmonic oscillator (along with the statistics of Maxwell-Boltzmann) to the radiation and you will get Planck's law. Clearly, something here is wrong - how comes that the rules of quantuum mechanics work well in predicting experimental reuslts and the laws of classical physics do not?

After that, try applying quantuum mechanics to classic harmonic oscillators (mass on a spring). You'll get nonsensical results. Classical physics works in our macroscopic world, and quantuum mechanincs works in microscopic to sub-microscopic world. Furthermore, classical physics even fails in describing relativity.

Clearly, to describe the universe as a whole, correct is either one of the theories or neither. It can't be both because they are contradictory. Many physicists have said so, including my physics professor.

Have I been specific enough?

No?

Buy a book on superstring theory for beginners or those who have no grasp of mathematical representations of basic physical laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir, you haven't studied statistics and methodologies at university by that tone of voice. You're flat out wrong. Statistical data is necessary for ANY EXPERIMENT. You must know if your experiment is statistically 'significant', meaning it is due to chance or non-chance. I really really think you need to post your sources. Because it seems your data is way off. Not only have you slandered a body of work in physics. You're slandering psychology and its use of methodologies in experiments without verify your claims. You use a broad brush to paint your views onto fields you seem not to know diddle about. If you can't get back to the core topic of this thread; AI's and how we should treat them if they get to the level of intelligence as we are..., then maybe I should ask a Moderator to lock the thread.

In regard to the thread topic, you have no idea what you are talking about. I happen to be a programmer and AI's interest me alot, and I even used to think along the lines - what if we can program a machine to be conscious. The fact is - we can't. No matter what tweaks of programming we use, a machine will always work along the deterministic lines of the programming it has. The final outcome of every stimulus it receives will, therefore, be predictable.

For my explanation of my claims regarding physics, read above post.

As for statistics, I stand by what I said. I know the importance of statistical data in the sciences and I know that on the basis of statistical data, no definite conclusion can be drawn as to the individual element (object or person) which was subjected to the survey (or upon which the results of the survey have been extended to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Speicher,

I absolutely love reading your posts because of your insight and clarity.  This might be a bit off topic, but why keep responding to this guy?  He's obviously ignorant and an outright troll.  At first it was slightly amusing, but now its almost insulting to see someone as yourself dealing with this "Bridget" person.

I'm not trolling, Stephen is the one attacking me. :P

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first reference are my physics classes.

If you want me to be specific, then try, from the laws of classical physics, to derive the equation which expresses the radiation of a black body. If you do it for small wavelengths, you will get the equation telling you that the radiation approaches infinity. Experiments suggest that is incorrect.

Only in the classic physics models we get the UV death radiation burst. Max Planck normalizes the issue by only allowing light to come in specific frequencies and specific amounts of energy. :P

Then apply the rules of the quantuum harmonic oscillator (along with the statistics of Maxwell-Boltzmann) to the radiation and you will get Planck's law. Clearly, something here is wrong - how comes that the rules of quantuum mechanics work well in predicting experimental reuslts and the laws of classical physics do not?
That's because classical mechanics are not based on few things QM is which is discrete units. In Classical Mechanics, spacetime and all energy can form in arbitrary amounts. And even interactions can vary in the amount of spacetime and energy they use, which is absurd. If system A has the same particles as system B they behaviors should follow a similar path. But under Classical Mechanics, their behaviors can be totally random! This is the error of Classical Mechanics not the error of Quantum Mechanics. You're sorta taking Einstein's position on QM here, and that hasn't ever been resolve. :(

After that, try applying quantuum mechanics to classic harmonic oscillators (mass on a spring). You'll get nonsensical results. Classical physics works in our macroscopic world, and quantuum mechanincs works in microscopic to sub-microscopic world. Furthermore, classical physics even fails in describing relativity.

That's because of what I said before, Classical Mechanics measures and so on are arbitrary.

Clearly, to describe the universe as a whole, correct is either one of the theories or neither. It can't be both because they are contradictory. Many physicists have said so, including my physics professor.

Have I been specific enough?

No?

Buy a book on superstring theory for beginners or those who have no grasp of mathematical representations of basic physical laws.

String Theory doesn't really even fit the term theory. It's more hypothesis. It takes already proven premises and then uses something unverified[extra dimensions and entities called strings] to make new predictions[i think they predicted new particles but I'm not sure, it's been a while]. But to verify String Theory[and M-Theory] would take a particle accelerator with more power than we can generate currently. :P

But luckily Loop Quantum Gravity is going through another test, after failing a previous one. Who knows, maybe LQP gets the prize of being theory of everything. :pimp:

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you imagine someone seriously trying to integrate behaviorism with Objectivism?

Let's see...

First, deny the existence of a volitional consciousness, substituting in its place some notion of stimulus-and-response which, given sufficient complexity, creates the illusion of consciousness.

Well, one third of Objectivist metaphysics is the axiom of consciousness.  So I guess we can dispense with that.  And, of course, if I'm not aware of anything, I can't take existence for granted.  And if existence is identity, then identity is out as well.  So much for metaphysics.

So if consciousness is not real, then we don't need rules to guide thinking.  It's just an automatic process, after all.  So we throw out logic.  And if we aren't actually aware of an objective reality, then there is no such thing as a faculty to integrate sense data into concepts.  There goes reason.

And, when it comes to actions, these are just the response to various stimuli.  So we don't need to define and develop a code of principles to guide our choices.  Likewise, we can't give out moral blame or praise, since everyone just passively responds to stimuli.  So ethics is right out.

Socially, we don't need to recognize the minds of others, since those don't exist.  There's no justification, then, for leaving the mind free from physical force.  So much for freedom, individual rights and capitalism.

What about art?  Well, not much need to concretize one's metaphysics or experience one's sense of life (those being consciousness-related thingies).  Of course Ayn Rand's whole exposition on the connection between freewill and Romantic art must be wrong, too.

So let's see how well I did:

No metaphysics, no epistemology, no reason, no ethics, no capitalism, no Romantic art.

Boy, I didn't do too well, did I?  Maybe they are slightly incompatible after all... :P

Not neccesarily since most functions of a person are automonic. Think about breathing. Then try to stop breathing. You sure can for a little while but when you pass out then you start breathing again. What causes this? Some mystical free will force? Or that it's beyond complete control of will.

Free will is all fine and dandy but to ignore the causal nature of any person and entity is wrong. A does B thus causing C can never been violated unless it's in the context of other causal chains, which can be unrelated to the example chain. There's nothing wrong with this position it doesn't say that any entity with the capacity of memory and to respond to personality cannot break causal chains. They sure can and do everyday. As for AI's, people assume that the future AI's will be all a series of If-Else-Then statements. Well with the current work, they won't be, sorry. I didn't make the rules of progress and research. :pimp:

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regard to the thread topic, you have no idea what you are talking about. I happen to be a programmer and AI's interest me alot, and I even used to think along the lines - what if we can program a machine to be conscious. The fact is - we can't. No matter what tweaks of programming we use, a machine will always work along the deterministic lines of the programming it has. The final outcome of every stimulus it receives will, therefore, be predictable.

For my explanation of my claims regarding physics, read above post.

As for statistics, I stand by what I said. I know the importance of statistical data in the sciences and I know that on the basis of statistical data, no definite conclusion can be drawn as to the individual element (object or person) which was subjected to the survey (or upon which the results of the survey have been extended to).

Wrong again. Only if you use the current system of logic that is used on computers. Even that logic is imcomplete. There is nothing in Rand's statements that put consciousness equal to reality and identity. Not one damned statement of hers. If you say consciousness is equal to reality and identity, then you're a transcendentalist. Not a supporter of objective reality.

The current AI with If-Then-Else statements are incomplete, yes but with quantum computers and the new sets of language we're using on them, an AI can and will eventually be able to develop to handle ideas like context and so forth.

Also not one of you have shown where humans become volitional. Are we or are we not animals? We gestate and are born. We evolved from other species as a species. There is nothing special about our origins.

If you claim that we're

1. Not animals.

2. Didn't evolve

and 3. We don't develop overtime.

You'll pretty much disregard every bit of scientific data in the last 100 years that says so. I really want your views clarified. ^___^ This isn't exactly what I call rational thought if you don't accept what is known in science. :P

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

current AI with If-Then-Else statements are incomplete, yes but with quantum computers and the new sets of language we're using on them

Bridget, I wonder, what year of Comp Sci are you in? The highest level of computing that any computer can ever be made to perform is a Turing Machine.

A Turing machine is an abstract theoretical computer, a machine with infinite memory and infinite speed; it's an abstract model upon which all our computers have been designed. Now, The Turing machine cannot achieve volition, and yet it is infinitely faster than Quantum computers, and has infinitely more memory.

All your talk of quantum computers and new sets of language is highly abstract, and seems more wishful thinking than any concrete facts. What sorts of new sets of language? What computational power will they have over current sets of language? All current languages, C++ etc, are already at the top of the computational power, and using them you can perform any computation of any finite complexity, which means you can perform any computation possible.

There cannot be made any more 'powerful' language. The only improvements new languages provide are in speed and memory efficiency. No new aspect of computation can become open to you by a new language, because all aspects are already open.

This subject will be unfamiliar to you if you haven't taken a class on Automata, a very important class for the theory behind computer science. Have you taken it yet?

P.S. And in the future, I request you show Stephen Speicher a lot more respect than you have now, or I will cease from responding to any of your posts, except negatively. I also expect other members to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... There is nothing in Rand's statements that put consciousness equal to reality and identity. Not one damned statement of hers. If you say consciousness is equal to reality and identity, then you're a transcendentalist. Not a supporter of objective reality.

Is a tennis ball equal to reality and identity? No… but it exists and has an identity (just like consciousness does). If you are saying that Miss Rand didn’t believe in the primacy of consciousness - right you are (but no one in this forum needed to be reminded of that).

Also not one of you have shown where humans become volitional. Are we or are we not animals? We gestate and are born. We evolved from other species as a species. There is nothing special about our origins.

If you claim that we're

1. Not animals.

2. Didn't evolve

and 3. We don't develop overtime.

You'll pretty much disregard every bit of scientific data in the last 100 years that says so. I really want your views clarified. ^___^ This isn't exactly what I call rational thought if you don't accept what is known in science. :P

This is a rationalist approach not a rational one. Sure we are animals, and we defiantly evolve and develop over time… so you are deducing what humans are from the concept of 'animal'? Do you really need 100 years of scientific data to decide that humans have volition (or even worse, in your case, that they don’t)? Ed pointed out why behaviorism is not compatible with Objectivism. The fact that my heart beats automatically btw: doesn’t mean I don’t have free will – it simply means that my heart beats automatically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridget, I wonder, what year of Comp Sci are you in? The highest level of computing that any computer can ever be made to perform is a Turing Machine.

A Turing machine is an abstract theoretical computer, a machine with infinite memory and infinite speed; it's an abstract model upon which all our computers have been designed. Now, The Turing machine cannot achieve volition, and yet it is infinitely faster than Quantum computers, and has infinitely more memory.

This isn't true; Feynmann showed in 1982 that a computer designed to exploit quantum principles would be capable of modelling phenomena that couldn't be modelled classically, and his ideas were later extended into a idea of a general quantum turing machine. As far as I know, the question regarding whether quantum algorithms could get around the Church-Turing thesis is an open questions within complexity theory at present. There was an (in)famous paper published by Tien Kieu a few years ago where claimed to have found an algorithm capable of solving a classically undecidable problem (Hilbert's tenth), and although some errors were later found in his paper causing him to tone down some particular claims (I believe he switched to 'such an algorithm may be possible'), the debate rages on. Most experts do agree with you, but there are certainly dissenters, and to completely write off the possibility of new computing models seems a bit hasty - people have only been investigating QTMs for around 20 years, so I would be sceptical of anyone claiming to have definitive conclusions at the present time.

In any case, I'm not sure why it matters. The fundamental particles of nature may turn out to operate according to fully deterministic laws, but this doesn't prevent them from forming systems that are capable of volitional action (ie humans). I can think of no strong reason to assume that a "sufficiently complex" computer program would be unable to produce the same result, even assuming that it was entirely deterministic at the level of individual code lines. I'm not prepared to believe that theres something magical about the material making up our brains that makes it capable of implementing structures which can't be modelled abstractly, unless someone can show me some pretty solid evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take a look at the papers. In the meanwhile I can state that there is nothing special about QTMs that make them better than regular Turing Machines. Turing's hypothesis holds for all machines which follow a deterministic course, regardless of how they were made - bits and electrons (modern computer), biological cells, simple water running and switching levers, or subatomic particles. If you disregard the modern hysteria about random and 'weird' Quantum Mechanics, it will be seen that the subatomic reality, although unusual and different from our macro world, still follows the same rules and laws, and still obeys the laws of causality and identity. If this, what I said last, holds true for Quantum Mechanics (as it must), then Quantum Turing Machines necessarily fall under the category of a regular Turing Machine, and are therefore subject to the same conclusions.

I don't keep myself up on the latest developments in Quantum Computer development, and it is quite possible they will be enormously faster than any computer devised so far, but the Turing Machine will still always be infinitely faster, and it still cannot do what people hope QTMs will.

I can think of no strong reason to assume that a "sufficiently complex" computer program would be unable to produce [volition]
This statement, which is at the root of your claim, suffers from two problems:

1) You assume that the human mind is a "sufficiently complex" deterministic program of some sort, with volition fundamentally as an illusion, and only seen as 'free' on a macro level

2) Every algorithm of every imaginable finite complexity is subsumed by the Turing Machine. Thus, unless you propose an infinitely complex algorithm (an impossibility as far as I can see) anything you propose will be subject to the conclusions that hold for Turing Machines. You forget just how powerful TMs are; by design they were created powerful enough to compute everything in the universe that is computable at all. There can't be anything complicated enough that the TMs cannot solve, unless it's one of those uncomputable problems that only man can solve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Stephen! I can appreciate the analogy to "doing time" in jail because that's what I feel the cognitive sciences are (albeit a mental one). I mean, just look at what a couple of college psychology courses can do to a person!

Sometimes it is difficult to know which is the cause, and which is the effect. It takes an already existing sort of mentality that glories in being told that man is just a set of orchestrated biophysical processes with no room for consideration of a volitional consciousness. The courses are indeed quite bad, but the mentality that uncritically gobbles up that swill, is worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because classical mechanics are not based on few things QM is which is discrete units. In Classical Mechanics, spacetime and all energy can form in arbitrary amounts. And even interactions can vary in the amount of spacetime and energy they use, which is absurd.

The only absurdity here is what you wrote. This is pure babble. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not neccesarily since most functions of a person are automonic. Think about breathing. Then try to stop breathing. You sure can for a little while but when you pass out then you start breathing again. What causes this? Some mystical free will force? Or that it's beyond complete control of will.

What irony. You choose the autonomic nervous system in a misguided attempt to refute free will, and the example you choose, breathing, is the one sole function of the autonomic nervous system that can be consciously controlled. Simply amazing!

Anyway, the fact that free wil has causal efficacy over the brain and the body in which the brain resides, in no way implies that the conscious mind can control every neural or biological function. An attempt to refute free will by reference to the autonomic nervous system, is at best, simply ignorant, as anyone who has studied even basic neural science would know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing in Rand's statements that put consciousness equal to reality and identity. Not one damned statement of hers. If you say consciousness is equal to reality and identity, then you're a transcendentalist. Not a supporter of objective reality.

What does the verbal mishmash even mean? :) Taking my best guess, if you are stating that Ayn Rand did not think that consciousness exists in reality, and that it does not possess identity, then you are even more ignorant than your previous posts have indicated.

Also not one of you have shown where humans become volitional.

Well, you can't blame us for that, can you? Afterall, we are just determined to do whatever we do. Right? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental particles of nature may turn out to operate according to fully deterministic laws, but this doesn't prevent them from forming systems that are capable of volitional action (ie humans). I can think of no strong reason to assume that a "sufficiently complex" computer program would be unable to produce the same result, even assuming that it was entirely deterministic at the level of individual code lines.

Do you not differentiate between the behavior of a biological entity and "code lines" that mimic such behavior? Is there no difference between the neural processes of a brain and execution of code in a computer program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take a look at the papers. In the meanwhile I can state that there is nothing special about QTMs that make them better than regular Turing Machines. Turing's hypothesis holds for all machines which follow a deterministic course, regardless of how they were made - bits and electrons (modern computer), biological cells, simple water running and switching levers, or subatomic particles. If you disregard the modern hysteria about random and 'weird' Quantum Mechanics, it will be seen that the subatomic reality, although unusual and different from our macro world, still follows the same rules and laws, and still obeys the laws of causality and identity. If this, what I said last, holds true for Quantum Mechanics (as it must), then Quantum Turing Machines necessarily fall under the category of a regular Turing Machine, and are therefore subject to the same conclusions.

I think the biggest point I'm trying to make is that our current logic sets we use on computers are just the roadblock between true intelligence and AI. But I guess the next conclusion would be is such an intelligence compatible with that of human-like intelligence? I mean even though as I said that I'm proponent of strong-ai in some ways, I think it will still be different but still close enough to resemble an intelligence and etc. o_O

I don't keep myself up on the latest developments in Quantum Computer development, and it is quite possible they will be enormously faster than any computer devised so far, but the Turing Machine will still always be infinitely faster, and it still cannot do what people hope QTMs will.
Who knows, right now they're all pretty much proto-types officially. :)

This statement, which is at the root of your claim, suffers from two problems:

1) You assume that the human mind is a "sufficiently complex" deterministic program of some sort, with volition fundamentally as an illusion, and only seen as 'free' on a macro level

But all events are still causal and thus are responses are contigent on causality. But that doesn't mean we don't make decisions counter to the contigencies.

2) Every algorithm of every imaginable finite complexity is subsumed by the Turing Machine. Thus, unless you propose an infinitely complex algorithm (an impossibility as far as I can see) anything you propose will be subject to the conclusions that hold for Turing Machines. You forget just how powerful TMs are; by design they were created powerful enough to compute everything in the universe that is computable at all. There can't be anything complicated enough that the TMs cannot solve, unless it's one of those uncomputable problems that only man can solve.

Good point.

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only absurdity here is what you wrote. This is pure babble. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Horse hockey! It wasn't until Max Planck that anyone ever attempted to make absolute minimums for energy, matter, space, and time. His scales are the very reason why the 'UV death' was corrected in many equations. You haven't invalidated the Planck measures. Never. So until you do your arguments are F-A-L-S-E. Thankyou, drive thru.

-- Bridget

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horse hockey! It wasn't until Max Planck that anyone ever attempted to make absolute minimums for energy, matter, space, and time. His scales are the very reason why the 'UV death' was corrected in many equations. You haven't invalidated the Planck measures. Never. So until you do your arguments are F-A-L-S-E. Thankyou, drive thru.

Frequently, as in this case, your responses are disconnected from the points being made. I do not know if your problem is one of comprehension or something more serious, but you really should try harder to read what is being said. In part your words, to which I responded, were:

"In Classical Mechanics, spacetime and all energy can form in arbitrary amounts. And even interactions can vary in the amount of spacetime and energy they use ..."

In fact, this is pure babble. Phrases such as "spacetime ... can form in arbitrary amounts," and "the amount of spacetime ... they use," are utter nonsense. You are using words that you do not understand in ways that are senseless. There is no shortcut to knowledge, and tossing jargon around in the silly ways that you do is truly absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frequently, as in this case, your responses are disconnected from the points being made. I do not know if your problem is one of comprehension or something more serious, but you really should try harder to read what is being said. In part your words, to which I responded, were:

"In Classical Mechanics, spacetime and all energy can form in arbitrary amounts. And even interactions can vary in the amount of spacetime and energy they use ..."

In fact, this is pure babble. Phrases such as "spacetime ... can form in arbitrary amounts," and "the amount of spacetime ... they use," are utter nonsense. You are using words that you do not understand in ways that are senseless. There is no shortcut to knowledge, and tossing jargon around in the silly ways that you do is truly absurd.

Um no. And again, no. You shift base YET AGAIN. You have neer invalidated anything I've said so far. You've only whined about this and that even though I never misused a single term what-so-ever.

So again where am I wrong in stating that physicists prior to Max Planck hadn't a clue to handle the 'UV Death' issue with light? And where am I wrong on that Planck devised specific minimum units of measure to which allow for errors in Classical Physics to be rectified? Where? Not a dang single place I'm wrong.

You seem to want to manipulate and bully people you don't like for whatever reason. If you don't like me, IGNORE ME. It is a feature of this forum. I never have attacked you until now. You seem to have had it out for me since my first post here. If you want to continue to be hostile then I will be forced to place you on ignore. I suggest you explain your unjust hostility toward me. And it seems you essentially trolled away everyone else that wanted to reply to my posts since you take content with me. All in all, congrats on attacking and defacing a thread that hasn't a damned thing to do with physics, but you seem to have an anal nature that requires you to make an idiot of yourself, cheers and say hello to ignore.

-- Bridget sprays Stephen with a heavy dose of Troll'B'Gone[tm]!

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...