Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

On the question of free-will vs. determinism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

We are introspectively aware of free will.

Not really. In a sense we dont experience our thought processes, only the results of them (when I try to remember someone's name and it 'just comes to me', I could not say HOW it came to me. When I try to decide whether to have pasta or rice for dinner, I could not say HOW I reached my decision). The determinist would claim that these results are 'computed' in a deterministic manner before we become aware of them. Free will is a hypothesis (one which I support) to explain certain things we introspect, not something we experience directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the stance of 'free will' as an alternative stance to determinism simply states that causality holds true, and that determinism is false?

Yes. Causalty states that a.) all actions are actions of entities and b.) all entities can only act in the manner dictated by their nature. It does NOT state WHAT that nature must be. It is the nature of human beings to possess a volitional consciousness. Volition does not contradict causalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All one really needs to do to disprove causal determinism is, of course, to demonstrate that two situations with identical initial conditions can result in different final conditions. I believe quantum mechanics already states this. Causality, however, still holds true, so I'd think the stance of 'free will'--if all it says is that causality holds true and determinism doesn't--is the most justifiable stance.

Causal determinism doesn't say that a person can't be convinced of something, it only says that whether a person will be convinced of something or not is predetermined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question cannot be answered in any useful manner. What do you mean when you say "determinism"? The term refers to a category of philosophical theories, all of which happen to be false. Philosophical theories are extants . . . so determinism is an extant, an extant being "something that exists". However, this has no bearing on whether deterministic theories are true or not. They are not.

If you meant instead, "can we just say that something exists that contradicts volition, that something being determinism?" the answer is no. Volition is axiomatic. It is true. Contradictions cannot exist. A is A. Therefore a thing (volition) and a thing that makes volition impossible (determinism) cannot both be true. If an idea is false, it does not refer to anything that exists in reality, there is no extant "determinism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free will is a hypothesis (one which I support) to explain certain things we introspect, not something we experience directly.

What on earth do you mean by "experience directly"? By the definition of the rest of your post NOTHING humans experience is "direct" it all comes to us through SOME means. We see wavelengths of light by means of our eyes. We feel friction and temperature by means of our sense of touch. We observe the functions our our consciousness by means of their results. We observe EVERYTHING by means of some kind of RESULT. To demand "direct experience" as empirical proof of something in this manner is to require a perception divorced from a means of perception

In essence, you are, as Kant did, denying the validity of the senses, albeit indirectly.

Volition is not a hypothesis. It is an axiom. It is not something posited in order to explain an occurance. It is presupposed by ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Causal determinism doesn't say that a person can't be convinced of something, it only says that whether a person will be convinced of something or not is predetermined.

Actually, it does. In order to be able to convince someone of something, by definition, it has to be possible BOTH for them to be either convinced or not convinced. If the result is predetermined then only ONE of these alternatives is possible; the predetermined one. It is only in the face of the alternative (and not an illusory alternative, an actual alternative) that the term "convince" means anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But would it be incorrect to say that Objectivism holds that that which is not affected by volition is determined?

It would be incorrect. It is not determined, it is caused. That is the difference between the metaphysical and the man-made. Metaphysical facts are immutable; they are necessary, they have to be what they are. The man made did not necessarily have to be what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, JMeganSnow.

If certain things are caused, but not by acts of volition, then what is different from saying those things are determined as opposed to saying those things are caused?

What are the things that are caused? Do causes work on states of affairs to make new states of affairs, or how is the concept of causality stated?

When you say metaphysical facts are immutable, what is the scope of the metaphysical? I understand the notion that states that are man-made are not determined, but all other things, those not acted upon by man's volition, since they could not have been any other way, then in what sense are they not determined?

Edited by LauricAcid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since consciousness is physical phenomena, just as anything else, its actions should be predetermined if all other physical phenomena are. If the actions which a conscious being takes are not predetermined, then the most fundamental physical phenomena must not be deterministic either, and the actions of non-conscious entities can't be predetermined either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly do you mean by 'metaphysical facts'?

Metaphysical = of or pertaining to reality, so a metaphysical fact could be called a "fact of reality." Man has no power to contradict metaphysical facts, only to change certain conditions and arrangements of them to better suit himself.

A rock is a metaphysical fact; a skyscraper is a man-made fact. A rock could not be anything other than what it is, a skyscraper did not HAVE to be a skyscraper, it could just as easily have been left as a pile of untouched materials and a vacant lot. Once it is erected, though, a skyscraper IS a skyscraper, its existence qua skyscraper is NOW a metaphysical fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If certain things are caused, but not by acts of volition, then what is different from saying those things are determined as opposed to saying those things are caused?

What are the things that are caused? Do causes work on states of affairs to make new states of affairs, or how is the concept of causality stated?

When you say metaphysical facts are immutable, what is the scope of the metaphysical? I understand the notion that states that are man-made are not determined, but all other things, those not acted upon by man's volition, since they could not have been any other way, then in what sense are they not determined?

This was a linguistic error on my part. Caused and determined can mean the same thing. It was my thought that determined implied an acting consciousness to do the determining, but it turned out that there was more to the definition. My bad.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since consciousness is physical phenomena, just as anything else, its actions should be predetermined if all other physical phenomena are.  If the actions which a conscious being takes are not predetermined, then the most fundamental physical phenomena must not be deterministic either, and the actions of non-conscious entities can't be predetermined either.

In what way do you assert that consciousness is a physical phenomena? I'm not referring to any mystical "other dimension" or "soul" or anything else of that nature, I'm simply saying that this is not necessarily an accurate definition for what consciousness is.

Determining the nature of consciousness, of matter, and of the rest of the universe in this manner is part of the special sciences and I'm unqualified to hold an opinion about that. Philosophy (and specifically causalty) doesn't dictate the nature of entities, it says only that, whatever entities exist, they must act in accordance with their nature.

It is part of the observable nature of man that he has volition, thus determinism (the philosophical theory) is false. It is also observable that matter does NOT have volition. WHY this is so is a scientific question; philosophy only says, "this is so" and then asks, "what else necessarily follows?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious, how do you define volition? Because I don't see how determinism is necessarily false because volition exists.

It is also observable that matter does NOT have volition.

But the actions matter takes aren't strictly predetermined. The nature of the matter determines the way that it can behave and the probability that it will behave in that way, but the initial conditions of a particle of matter and its environment don't cause a single, inevitable, predetermined final set of conditions. (This is what quantum mechanics says; there are, however, hidden variable theories which state that there are, well, hidden variables that we just aren't aware of and that matter really does behave in deterministic ways, but I don't think there's any evidnece for these. I've also read that some 'Bell Inequality' is supposed to challenge hidden variable theories, but I don't know anything about it. Anyway, this is science, not philosophy, and I should try to avoid going off subject. I'm just bringing this up because it is relevant to determinism.)

However, if matter (and waves and fields and all physical phenomena) always did behave in a predetermined way, then conscious beings should as well, because those beings--and consciousness--are physical phenomena, and if it's in the nature of physical phenomena to be strictly deterministic, then it should be in the nature of consciousnesses--being physical phenomena--to be strictly deterministic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious, how do you define volition?  Because I don't see how determinism is necessarily false because volition exists.

How do you define determinism? Determinism is a name for a category of philosophical theories (not scientific theories, philosophical theories) that deny the existence of volition. They range from claiming that we are "determined", meaning controlled, as a puppet, by forces beyond our means of detection or comprehension; that volition is only an illusion. Some forms claim total domination, some claim only partial domination or a "tendency"; they are all the same in fundamentals.

This is why determinism is necessarily false if volition exists.

I do not think you can assert with impunity that consciousness is necessarily a physical phenomena. Last I heard there was still no straightforward definition for what MATTER is, what it consists of, and how it functions on the submicroscopic level. More than one Objectivist physicist has informed me that Quantum Mechanics is bunk. It degenerated into a discussion of emergent properties of complex systems from there. I am not a physicist; I make no claims about what the constituents of consciousness are. I simply know that it cannot ultimately contradict the other information I have regarding reality. I'm curious to know, but it is not my chosen area of study.

What we DO know about consciousness comes from direct observation. We know that it is a means of percieving reality, that it takes the information from our senses and integrates it into precepts for us. That we can exercise our volition to use it and organize these precepts into concepts and thereby gain access to an unlimited field of knowledge. The precise mechanical operations by which it does this are not important to philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you define determinism?
I'll define determinism as any philosophical theory which states that all states are inevitable results of initial conditions. That encompasses the assertion that all choices made by conscious beings are predetermined.

I define volition as the ability to consciously take one of two or more possible actions. I'm not entirely sure if this contradicts determinism, but I suppose you could say that if the action taken is predetermined, then it's not possible for other actions to be taken, and determinism would assert that volition (like probability, according to determinism) doesn't really exist but is a useful conceptual tool for analysis.

Assume for a moment that determinism is true (a false assumption, but assume it for the sake of discussion). There is no such thing, metaphysically, as 'probability'--what will happen is predetermined. If we flip a coin, a certain outcome will inevitably occur--either it will be heads or it will be tails. We, however, don't know what the result will be, so we invent probability to approximately describe the distribution of results. We think of probability as something that exists, even though it really doesn't--it's an illusion. Volition would, according to determinism, be illusionary in a somewhat analogous way.

I do not think you can assert with impunity that consciousness is necessarily a physical phenomena.

Physical phenomena includes matter, energy, charge, momentum, spin, fields... pretty much anything that can be observed. I don't see why I can't assert with impunity that consciousness is a physical phenomenon.

Last I heard there was still no straightforward definition for what MATTER is, what it consists of, and how it functions on the submicroscopic level.
This is somewhat true, I believe. There's a certain problem in defining things like matter, however--definitions relate concepts to previously known concepts, and when you get to basic properties like matter and charge, you're going to get tautological definitions; a definition of one phenomenon will refer you to a second phenomenon, and the definition of the second will refer you back to the first. Matter is anything which has mass (...and takes up space? I think singularities have zero volume), if I remember correctly, and mass is a measure of the amount of matter.

More than one Objectivist physicist has informed me that Quantum Mechanics is bunk. It degenerated into a discussion of emergent properties of complex systems from there. I am not a physicist; I make no claims about what the constituents of consciousness are. I simply know that it cannot ultimately contradict the other information I have regarding reality. I'm curious to know, but it is not my chosen area of study.

Quantum mechanics is a very well-supported theory. Perhaps they meant that certain popular interpertations of it are bunk.

The precise mechanical operations by which it [consciousness]does this [functions] are not important to philosophy.

If consciousness is physical phenomena, a good philosophy should acknowledge this and not assign contradictory properties to consciousness and to non-conscious physical phenomena. A philosophy should either say both consciousness and non-conscious physical phenomena are deterministic, or neither of them are, unless it wishes to assert that consciousness is not physical phenomena... but then you're getting into the supernatural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metaphysical = of or pertaining to reality, so a metaphysical fact could be called a "fact of reality."

If metaphysical is that which is of or pertains to reality, then what is not metaphysical? If a metaphysical fact is a fact of reality, then what other facts are there?

A rock is a metaphysical fact; a skyscraper is a man-made fact.

Something man made is not of or pertaining to reality?

Caused and determined can mean the same thing.  It was my thought that determined implied an acting consciousness to do the determining, but it turned out that there was more to the definition.

So before there were humans with volition, all was determined? But as soon as one human had volition, some things were determined and others were not? But the possession of that volition by that first human who had volition was determined since the fact of having that volition was the result of causes that were not volitional (since they preceded a human having volition), or not? So how did volition come out of a world with no volition?

In what way do you assert that consciousness is a physical phenomena?  I'm not referring to any mystical "other dimension" or "soul" or anything else of that nature, I'm simply saying that this is not necessarily an accurate definition for what consciousness is.

Determining the nature of consciousness, of matter, and of the rest of the universe in this manner is part of the special sciences and I'm unqualified to hold an opinion about that.  Philosophy (and specifically casualty) doesn't dictate the nature of entities, it says only that, whatever entities exist, they must act in accordance with their nature.

It is part of the observable nature of man that he has volition, thus determinism (the philosophical theory) is false.  It is also observable that matter does NOT have volition.  WHY this is so is a scientific question; philosophy only says, "this is so" and then asks, "what else necessarily follows?"

Is man's nature observed by the senses, or is it inferred from sensory observations? How would science show that man's nature is volitional?

[...] determinism is necessarily false if volition exists.

But when volition does not exist, such as before humans existed, then isn't determinism true? Also, what do you mean by necessarily false? What is the difference between necessary falsehood and other falsehood?

Also, how do you exercise your volition upon objects? When you toss a coin, you do it volitionally, but your volition cannot determine whether the coin lands heads or tails. But when your thumb moves to launch the coin from you hand, your volition cannot determine that the coin will go up, because your thumb could slip and the coin fall to the floor. But when you make the very first movement with your thumb, you cannot determine that you'll move it long enough to begin the launch of the coin, since something could stop your thumb, some force such as a book falling off a shelf onto your hand or even a paralysis of your own body. So at what point do you exercise volition upon other objects? When you decide to move your thumb to start the flip might be the answer. But that is not a point at which you are moving objects. So how can you exercise volition upon objects at all? And how can other human beings observe a decision? Other human can only observe that you did in fact move your thumb. But that is an observation only of something physical.

What we DO know about consciousness comes from direct observation. We know that it is a means of percieving reality, that it takes the information from our senses and integrates it into precepts for us.  That we can exercise our volition to use it and organize these precepts into concepts and thereby gain access to an unlimited field of knowledge.  The precise mechanical operations by which it does this are not important to philosophy.

Direct observation of what? Direct observation of physical things? Or direct observation of your own consciousness? Or both? (Or do you have direct observation of non-physical things other than your own consciousness?) How do you infer from direct observation of physical things that consciousness is not physical? How do your infer from direct observation of your own consciousness that consciousness is not physical?

'information', 'senses', 'integrates', 'percepts', 'volition', 'exercise volition', 'organize percepts', 'concepts', 'knowledge', 'mechanics', 'operations'. Those are a lot of terms.

But you say that there is an unlimited field of knowledge. What field is that? A finite field or an infinite one?

Edited by LauricAcid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What on earth do you mean by "experience directly"?  By the definition of the rest of your post NOTHING humans experience is "direct" it all comes to us through SOME means.  We see wavelengths of light by means of our eyes.  We feel friction and temperature by means of our sense of touch.  We observe the functions our our consciousness by means of their results.  We observe EVERYTHING by means of some kind of RESULT.  To demand "direct experience" as empirical proof of something in this manner is to require a perception divorced from a means of perception

As I said, we have direct experience of the RESULTS of thought processes, but not the processes themselves. I experience the outcome of remembering something, but I dont experience the act of remembering itself, which (I assume) was a result of computations in my brain. Qualia would be directly experienced also.

Light and 'wavelengths' are part of a theory which explains how we see things. Free will is a theory which explains how we seem to make 'choices'. Freewill isnt 'axiomatic' - if you think it is somehow self-evident, the burden of proof is on you to explain how noone in the entire world seems to have noticed it until the early Christians needed to invent a way to explain away the problem of evil.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Light and 'wavelengths' are part of a theory which explains how we see things. Free will is a theory which explains how we seem to make 'choices'. Freewill isnt 'axiomatic' - if you think it is somehow self-evident, the burden of proof is on you to explain how noone in the entire world seems to have noticed it until the early Christians needed to invent a way to explain away the problem of evil.

So far arguments have been posited against free will, that revolve around the process of thinking. This process, which is in fact consciousness, is unknown to modern science. However - lack of knowledge of the mechanics of thought does not mean those processes are predetermined which is what you are advocating, if you do not recognize free will. Predetermined means that there is some entity that determines your actions - this either depends on some supernatural deity or an equation that describes human behavior. Since the concept of a deity or supernatural power is arbitrary, the arguments against free will reduce to an equation of consciousness. I assume that any such equation would have to be able to satisfy: if A stimulus is applied than B thought appears, with a "stronger" thought resulting in action. If such an equation were possible than all of human action could be predicted. Unfortunately such an equation does not exist and would requires you the burden of proof.

Why not the other way around? Because all experience dicatates that human action cannot be predicted. Certain actions can be anticipated, but are never a certainty. Our experience shows that when presented with a choice we choose what choice to make, or to make no choice at all (which actually is a choice :thumbsup: ). Determinism implies that we do not have a choice, but were always destined to make the choices we have made. Since we have already made those choices we cannot unmake them to see if we could choose another course. Because of this fact, it is equally impossible to show that the choice we made was the only choice we could have made.

Additional musings:

If there *was* such an equation of consciousness it might work in the following manner. A baby is born with the "equation" of thought inherent in him. This basic equation than modifies and changes shape with the countless amounts of stimuli offered to him as long as he lives. This baby grows into an adult. Every adult would have a different "equation" because of the modifications made by different stimuli. Some people have similar thought processes because they have experienced similar stimuli, which in turn produce similar actions and feelings. Thus each person would have a different equation, with no one equation being *the same* as another, although each would be built on the basic "human" equation inherent to them. This would explain individuality, as well as the ability for though processes and thus people to grow and change. Such an equation would be tremedously complex; however one would never be able to use this equation to predict the actions of an individual because it is always changing!

Anyway, I would appreciate any thoughts. /musings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far arguments have been posited against free will, that revolve around the process of thinking. This process, which is in fact consciousness, is unknown to modern science. However - lack of knowledge of the mechanics of thought does not mean those processes are predetermined which is what you are advocating, if you do not recognize free will. Predetermined means that there is some entity that determines your actions - this either depends on some supernatural deity or an equation that describes human behavior. Since the concept of a deity or supernatural power is arbitrary, the arguments against free will reduce to an equation of consciousness. I assume that any such equation would have to be able to satisfy: if A stimulus is applied than B thought appears, with a "stronger" thought resulting in action. If such an equation were possible than all of human action could be predicted. Unfortunately such an equation does not existyou the burden of proof.
Well, firstly I believe in free-will, I just dont think it is either self-evident or axiomatic. It is a hypothesis like any other.

Im not sure what you mean by an equation here - there wouldnt need to be some kind of equation specific to consciousness. All that would need to be shown is that the atoms/neurons/whatever-the-primary-physical-components-of-reality-are which made up the human brain obey the same deterministic laws as the atoms which made up all other physical matter in the universe. As I said, I dont think that such an equation will be found since I believe the universe is (physically) indeterminate on a fundamental level, but this is a hypothesis and one which could certainly be disproven by future science.

Why not the other way around? Because all experience dicatates that human action cannot be predicted. Certain actions can be anticipated, but are never a certainty.
Neuroscience and psychology are fairly young subjects. Those who are supporting determinism would say human behavior cant currently be predicted because it is highly complex (chaotic systems like the weather cant be predicted either), not because it is non-determinate.

Because of this fact, it is equally impossible to show that the choice we made was the only choice we could have made.
Not really. If we could show that the fundamental particles of the world obeyed laws which were entirely deterministic, it would follow that we 'had' to make the choices we made.

If there *was* such an equation of consciousness it might work in the following manner. A baby is born with the "equation" of thought inherent in him. This basic equation than modifies and changes shape with the countless amounts of stimuli offered to him as long as he lives. This baby grows into an adult.

This would be one level of explanation. Another would be "A baby is just a clump of atoms. These atoms all behave deterministically and obey physical equation Y. Over time these atoms will move around in a determinstic manner, causing us to see the baby doing different things and growing into an adult and so on". The advantage of reductionism is that you can describe things at the most basic level and avoid all the complexities that come from working at the higher ones.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I experience the outcome of remembering something, but I dont experience the act of remembering itself . . .

What on earth is the difference? Do you mean that you have no neurons to "sense" the firing of your neurons? The experience (an experience being a RESULT) of remembering something IS the act of remembering something.

Light and 'wavelengths' are part of a theory which explains how we see things.

Failure to distinguish between "theory" and "fact". Just because YOU refuse to accept something does not relegate it to the status of a "theory".

Free will is a theory which explains how we seem to make 'choices'. Freewill isnt 'axiomatic' - if you think it is somehow self-evident, the burden of proof is on you to explain how noone in the entire world seems to have noticed it until the early Christians needed to invent a way to explain away the problem of evil.

Volition is axiomatic. As I already explained the concept of proof depends upon the existence OF volition; in demanding proof you are already implicitly accepting the FACT of volition; hence you are requesting that I prove something that you have assumed in the course of this discussion. The only way to question the status of an axiom is to, in Ayn Rand's words (paraphrasing): "Shut one's mouth, expound no theories, and die."

You may request validation of the fact of volition, and Dr. Peikoff provides that in OPAR.

Your request that I have to explain how "no one noticed it" is absurd. Shall we assume that 2+2=4 is only a theory because cavemen didn't "notice" it? Bah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll define determinism as any philosophical theory which states that all states are inevitable results of initial conditions.  That encompasses the assertion that all choices made by conscious beings are predetermined.

Ah. This is not what determinism is. Determinism does NOT state that all states are the inevitable result of initial conditions. There are MANY kinds of determinism and this is only ONE; you are replacing an entire category of theories with one of its instances. (Which is, btw, a logical fallacy.)

Determinism only specifically states that humans have no volition. Whether determinists claim that we are controlled by our feelings, our glands, initial conditions or invisible gremlins shooting rays from Venus, the overall claim is the same. And, since volition is axiomatic; it is presupposed by logic, the process that is used to make scientific discoveries, scientific discoveries cannot contradict the fact of volition. If you arrive at some conclusion that appears to contradict volition, your only recourse is to try and figure out where you went wrong in your reasoning.

(paraphrase) To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in ones thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to shut one's eyes, deny one's mind, and evict oneself from the realm of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If metaphysical is that which is of or pertains to reality, then what is not metaphysical? If a metaphysical fact is a fact of reality, then what other facts are there?

Something man made is not of or pertaining to reality?

Please read the remainder of that post for my response to this. Man-Made facts BECOME metaphysical facts once they have been enacted. However, unlike metaphysical facts, before they are enacted they contain an aspect of the optional. A further example: the three laws or thermodynamics are metaphysical facts. The law against running a red light is a man-made fact, along with red lights, cars, and highways. Man has no power to violate the three laws of thermodynamics. He CAN, however, run a red light with impunity.

So before there were humans with volition, all was determined? But as soon as one human had volition, some things were determined and others were not? But the possession of that volition by that first human who had volition was determined since the fact of having that volition was the result of causes that were not volitional (since they preceded a human having volition), or not? So how did volition come out of a world with no volition?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? How did we get chickens in a world with no chickens?! Same kind of question.

Is man's nature observed by the senses, or is it inferred from sensory observations? How would science show that man's nature is volitional?

All science presupposes the fact that humans ARE volitional. You can't PROVE volition, but you may eventually discover the mechanism of volition.

But when volition does not exist, such as before humans existed, then isn't determinism true? Also, what do you mean by necessarily false? What is the difference between necessary falsehood and other falsehood?

No, because determinism is a category of theories pertaining directly to human beings. See my response to Malkuth above. "Necessarily false" is a matter of emphasis, not definition.

But you say that there is an unlimited field of knowledge. What field is that? A finite field or an infinite one?

This is a non-sequitur. What do you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   "Physical phenomena includes matter, energy, charge, momentum, spin, fields... pretty much anything that can be observed. I don't see why I can't assert with impunity that consciousness is a physical phenomenon."

 

If you take phenomenon as meaning "an observable fact or event"

Consciousness could better be termed in relation to physical phenomenon.

For instance a signal is a physical phenomenon but the data, all the ones and zeros, is an abstract signal communicating information between two or more receivers.

In other words Consciousness is a pattern of energy and that energy is the physical phenomenon and the data being relayed between synapses is a free standing wave type of signal.

A pattern or a process is something that happens to Physical things but it is not a physical thing itself.

Edited by RosszValaki
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...