EU ETI

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

EU ETI

Unread postby Panurg3 » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:28 am

here's kind of a science fictional exercise:

what kind of beings would occupy an EU?

what if, like electromagnetism, life, and perhaps intelligence also had a kind of scalability?

even assuming that an intelligence is nothing but information processing, and that there is enough complexity in the chemical and electrical plasma interactions of our universe, then there could be a hierarchy of life forms from micro to cosmic scales.

so the solution to the fermi paradox is that the ET's are invisible to us because they're too big or too small to see. plus maybe we're looking right at but don't know how to recognize it. it's like water from a fish perspective. plus how long would it take for an intelligence to learn to use star matter to compute and thence to infect all matter in a galaxy, say?

this is in contrast to the more popular conception of ETI's as being more or less monkeys like us except having cooler toys. i know there are all kinds of fiction dealing with this kind of concept, and many serious speculations also (refs?)... but any ideas on this specifically in an EU reality?

maybe all the other monkeys out there ascend into the Singularity or transcend in scale and no longer need to explore or contact others.

then also there's the spiritual or spooky side of things and other woo- and thankfully tbolts doesn't have very much of this (as it would further calcify the mainstream objections)- but there are other EU sites out there that are pretty "spiritual" whatever that is- and what IS that?
Panurg3
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:54 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:25 pm

I can only assume you are completely off your rocker to talk in such a way, but I'll give you a good answer anyway

There are a few things which are true, but not provable yet
1. The universe is infinite - the finite portion of the universe which contains matter is perpetually growing in size
2. The hubble deep space field, which represents about 26 billion light years of space, is a tiny dot in the existing finite portion of the universe which contains matter; the actual size of the portion of the universe where galaxies formulate and we exist (and other lifeforms exist) is trillions of times larger than 26 billion light years of space.
3. All matter is made of one substance, with an underlying unifying single force, formulating all aspects of the universe - matter, energy, magnetism, atom formation/molecule formation, gravity, etc. This unifying substance and the science of it has so far not been discovered by us on Earth, but undoubtedly has been by other lifeforms elsewhere.


From these three things, the existence of 'aliens' is a mathematical certainty - the finite portion of the universe which contains matter is just so large that other planets with evolving life is virtually certain. The sheer number of these viable planets that must be out there also suggests that on some of them, intelligent life evolved similar to how it did here. The universe is unique but a repetitive thing, where there is one star with a certain characteristic, you can bet somewhere in the cosmos, there is another with a similar trait. Lifeforms are no exception.

The 'reason' we do not know of the existence of these alien lifeforms - intelligent or not - is because the universe is so vast. There is simply too much distance between us to be in contact with them. It is likely we may find simple lifeforms like bacteria nearby, but most likely not complex life like animals, much less intelligent ones, in any near distance.

Furthermore, in terms of our own future and the ultimate fate of intelligent life besides extinction; it is most likely a form of artificial life, such as existing first as machines, then as machines without bodies; a complex organization of data which is not in a centralized single body (similar to the internet).

The entire universe is deterministic - including inside a human brain, no free will, no chance; it is simply an ocean of geometric substance stacking on top of itself by some underlying mechanism (force) to form ever more complex manifestations. Humans can create a pepsi can - nature cannot. But humans came from nature, and are made of the same atoms that make up planets; lifeforms are natures way of creating further complexity/abstractions from basic building blocks.

In conclusion - the universe is amazingly complex and fascinating, you don't need alien conspiracy theories to have these fantastic ideas be a reality - they just are, even within the confines of 'boring' science; just look deeper and you will find aspects to awe over.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby jacmac » Sat Oct 29, 2016 3:32 pm

Iw 1990 says:
The entire universe is deterministic - including inside a human brain, no free will, no chance;
I am just curious, if that is what you believe then why do you get up in the morning or write on this forum ?
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Sat Oct 29, 2016 4:11 pm

@jacmac
that is the most often asked question in response to that worldview
it's almost uncanny how often that is directly asked, almost word for word..

the answer may be counter intuitive; many people who do not have that world view associate their perceived free will as their identity - the very idea of that being taken away, to them, equals destruction of their identity and subsequently most of their will to live

most people who do not believe in free will, simply do not associate their identity with free will, and suffer no such emotional trauma or fear

life for a deterministic worldviewer could best be analogized as riding a rollercoaster that could potentially be as short as one second or as long as about 120 years; pending an artificial extension of the rollercoaster thanks to technology, it is thrilling and surprising to ride the rollercoaster; we can predict what will happen with some certainty in the short term, and we are curious what bends and twists will happen next or far in the future, or what insights we will gain from what we see as we ride, but we aren't fixated on the idea that we actually control where the rollercoaster goes, although it can feel like we have a little control by shifting our attention to certain things we see on the ride, we accept it is an illusion; and always has been this way, so nothing is lost except another Santa Claus.

Just like children who grow out of superstitions like Santa Claus, adults who have had the superstition destroyed generally don't really 'miss' having the wrong belief in their heads, even if it's a more magical reality to believe in.

it should also not really be surprising in hindsight that we are not more than the sum of our parts; we are made of atoms, we obey the same laws as every fundamental building block that makes us up, when we are just born, or in the womb, we do not associate as having a free-will driven mind or identity, we just think we gain it (if we are not born mentally deformed) at some point growing up; which is simply a psychological illusion because we do have great mobility that seems un-tethered from cause and effect, but is merely so complicated we cannot see the strings.

what people who don't believe this way experience when they first ponder the idea of not having any control is the same whiplash we got as children when we found out santa wasn't real; or whatever childhood superstition you had. it is a knee-jerk reaction to something we always took for granted being completely eradicated; but it was never really real in the first place.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby moses » Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:57 pm

One's type of experiencing is determined by a code. A lot like morse code but the dots and dashes are electrical impulses in the brain. So there is something that responds to a certain code, and pain or red, or bitter, etc, is produced. What is that something that responds.

All creatures have this something. Fish have experiencing, they feel. Perhaps even an atom has this something, experiencing. After all there are electrical codes in atoms, so why not experiencing. And it quickly dawns that there are electrical codes galore in nature, in fact in the whole universe, so that something could attach to any of these electrical codes and some type of experiencing would be the result.

You may say that experiencing is produced by an organ in the brain, but this is a most extraordinary subject but even if this was shown then that organ might merely be a transformer for the connection to this something.

Maybe this something has free will. That would mean a connection to that beyond the physical. Action arising from the non-physical, which is dualism compared with materialism's forbidding action arising from the non-physical.

Why do aliens keep hidden from us. Maybe one would expect some type of aliens to contact us, at least. Of course encounters with generals and such doesn't count. Could it be that all aliens find us repulsive and ill. Dangerous and distraught.

Perhaps this something is what one thinks of when the thought 'I have free will' arises, but the collection of ideas about oneself assumes an identity of 'I am alive', which is clearly rubbish. The something cannot produce much action because so much action is arising out of the collection of ideas, which is why we are ill. When we find silence then the aliens will contact us.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:56 am

Anyone care to define 'free will'?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:13 am

@grey cloud
careful, if you start to draw too much attention to words like 'free will' or 'faith' then you will expose them for the B.S. that they are

free will merely means that at given moment in time, you believe you could have done more than one thing;
for example, if I grow up hating coffee and loving water, all of my experiences will add up to a decision when asked 'coffee or water', it can only play out in one way. If at the time, I was having an existential crisis or wanted to be the opposite of who I normally was, then whatever caused that desire would result in me perhaps choosing the hated coffee instead, but this would still be caused by all of the events leading up to that moment.

Free will believers, instead, believe that all of those events only 'somewhat' cause our decisions, they have 'faith' in this because thats what it 'feels' like to them, ultimately they think we have a margin of 'untethered' control from the cause-effect chain. They believe this because it makes them feel in control, safe, powerful, and meaningful. These are all things they have attached to that idea psychologically, but as I keep telling people on this forum, reality does not care at all what your emotions want to be true. Reality does not care if you think it would be unbearable to believe you are not in control but merely feel like you are. The good news is, not believing in free will is not only bearable, it's actually more peaceful in my opinion; since things like blame are transformed into finding a cause besides shame and guilt on people.

A perfect example is the criminal system - an advanced people in the future who have realized their deterministic existence will seek to rehabilitate and isolate criminals until they are better, or keep them isolated if they cannot be fixed at that time, and never punish or shame them once they are already isolated because they think the criminals had free will control. So in essence, society becomes less of a lynching hatred divisive religion war machine without free will. Free will to any extent is the ultimate subliminal religion - religion in ourselves as mini gods; when that happens you do not start looking for scientific causes of behavior, you start labeling innocent newborn babies that grew up in any environment not of their choosing, at a time not of their choosing, and the subsequent personalities that form as their own fault. It's stupid, it's ignorant, and it's what 99.9999% of the population believes with all of their heart.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby nick c » Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:48 am

GC wrote:Anyone care to define 'free will'?
Exactly, precise definitions are necessary for a meaningful discussion.
lw1990 wrote:careful, if you start to draw too much attention to words like 'free will' or 'faith' then you will expose them for the B.S. that they are
To that I would also add "consciousness." In the course of discussions on the TB forum, we have had many references to consciousness and I am sure each forum member has their own personal conception of what is "consciousness."
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:30 am

lw1990

What a superficial and parochial post.

free will merely means that at given moment in time, you believe you could have done more than one thing;

Actualy the debate about free will has gone on for thousands of years across several continents at a level which is a tad deeper than your definition.

Free will believers, instead, believe that all of those events only 'somewhat' cause our decisions, they have 'faith' in this because thats what it 'feels' like to them, ultimately they think we have a margin of 'untethered' control from the cause-effect chain.

Personally, I would not presume to claim that I know what every free will 'believer' believes.
You have 'faith' that science has given you the correct world-view.
You speak of a 'cause-effect chain' yet this simplistic view is not shared by, e.g. Taoists and Vedantists.

They believe this because it makes them feel in control, safe, powerful, and meaningful.

And your beliefs, of course, are nothing to do with any of that.

These are all things they have attached to that idea psychologically,

How else does one attach to an idea?

Reality does not care if you think it would be unbearable to believe you are not in control but merely feel like you are.

You know what 'reality' is do you?

The good news is, not believing in free will is not only bearable, it's actually more peaceful in my opinion; since things like blame are transformed into finding a cause besides shame and guilt on people.

Or perhaps realising the extent of one's own ignorance before making shallow, sweeping generalisations about other people?

A perfect example is the criminal system - an advanced people in the future who have realized their deterministic existence will seek to rehabilitate and isolate criminals until they are better, or keep them isolated if they cannot be fixed at that time,..

Have a look at the various Scandanavian systems or the work of the European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control.

Free will to any extent is the ultimate subliminal religion - religion in ourselves as mini gods; when that happens you do not start looking for scientific causes of behavior, you start labeling innocent newborn babies that grew up in any environment not of their choosing, at a time not of their choosing, and the subsequent personalities that form as their own fault. It's stupid, it's ignorant, and it's what 99.9999% of the population believes with all of their heart.

I think you have some froth at the corner of your mouth.

To conclude: All your views of science and especially religion are a result of your culture and education. They are shallow and parochial and virtually everything you wrote in that post is predicated on Judeo-Christianity. Even your atheism is monotheistic.
Why do you think that at the ripe old age of twenty-six you are qualified to tell everyone else what their problems are?
Take some advice from the ancient Greeks: 'Know Thyself'. How? 'One eye for study and one eye for
meditation' - The Buddha.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby allynh » Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:30 pm

Panurg3,

Sorry to come late to the discussion.

If you are talking science fiction, you have to focus on what is storyable.

You have Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End as a great example of what you are talking about. Each planet starts out with separate individuals as part of a society. At a certain critical mass the separate individuals become one planetary mind that then joins the galactic mind.

There are a few beings that stay individuals, the Overlords in this case. They work for the galactic mind, trying to understand how they are different and not able to become a planetary mind.

Look at the universe as an infinite sea of chaos, with only a few bubbles of reality. Each bubble of reality is finite yet unbounded. Like the surface of a ball, you can walk anywhere and never reach an edge. Each bubble of reality is a living being, and we are the dreams, or the nightmares, of that living being.

Read Doctor Sleep by Stephen King as example of when people die from one life they enter another. The movie What Dreams My Come has a more overt version of that.

Look at the TV series Lost as another example of this. The island was the ark, the source and archive of all life on that copy Earth.

If you are an advanced civilization, able to use all of the resources of a galaxy, how do you have "children." In the original Star Trek there were many examples of "children" of advanced people that had dangerous access to advanced powers. "The Squire of Gothos" comes to mind. So what you do, as in Lost, is create a copy Earth. You seed it with human life, harvest each life as it matures, then advance the best of those people to the galactic level.

Look at the episodes near the end where they showed the cave filled with glowing light. In the deep past that glow was spilling out of the cave. In the present that glow was almost gone. Each "spark" was a recording device that was part of every birth. In the past the billions of "sparks" spilled out of the cave. In the present most of the "sparks" were almost gone, indicating that they were near the end, ready to harvest.

As people died, their "spark" would return to the island archive for processing and storage. The "sideways" part of the island was a virtual reality to take the recorded humans and run them through additional lives to grow them as people. Basically, instead of creating artificial life, you raise humans, then improve them over time.

The movie Jupiter Ascending is similar, with worlds seeded with humans, then harvested for their lifeforce to keep a select group of people alive for thousands of years, and provide limited health and healing to those who can afford it.

All of this fits in the EU with ease.
allynh
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:08 pm

@grey cloud
your post seems to be aimed at me, rather than determinism
I didn't come up with the idea of determinism
btw mentioning my age just makes it obvious you have nothing of substance to complain about.. it is not like I'm 13 here, maybe you weren't doing very much with your mind when you were 26, don't project that onto me.
you asked for a definition of free will, then rage that someone gave a definition of free will
free will and religion are closely tied; virtually every religion requires belief in free will in some form, which is why I used religious examples/analogies, but if you were expecting me to survey all of the religions equally and not just Christianity, then maybe you should start lowering your expectations for a free forum post.

btw free will is a relatively simple concept - just like determinism is, there's no real debate on what these things mean in general, which is why I said some people believe in varying degrees of free will, which accounts for almost all of the variants

the debate is on which is true, just as there has been debate on which religion, if any, is true; merely being debated for thousands of years says nothing about the 'deepness' or complexity of an issue

I have reasons based on experimental evidence that a scientific world view is true - objects behave according to laws, not gods. Humans are made up of those objects. That's different than faith, which is believing something you have no real evidence for, the strongest argument religions and free will believers have is 'you can't disprove my idea', which is not enough on its own. All physical phenomenon that we know of behaves according to some ruleset; there is absolutely no scientific reason to think our minds are any different. There is however a psychological reason - it can feel good, like believing in Santa Claus. There was a time when we didn't have all the experimental data we have today, and magic, free will, and religion seemed a lot more plausible. As we keep moving forward, those things will continue to die out. Everyone who believes in free will is fighting a losing battle, but it will probably take many more generations until the old minded traditions completely die out; like magic has for the most part. Religion will come next (it's already declining in certain advanced countries), then free will.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:15 am

btw mentioning my age just makes it obvious you have nothing of substance to complain about.. it is not like I'm 13 here, maybe you weren't doing very much with your mind when you were 26, don't project that onto me.
When I was 26 I was intelligent enough to realise that I wasn't intelligent enough to reduce complex problems to sweeping generalisations. Thirty-three years later, my breadth and depth of knowledge and my experience of life and living have greatly increased yet I am still acutely aware of my own ignorance.
Mental and physical age are not necessarily equal.

you asked for a definition of free will, then rage that someone gave a definition of free will
I did not rage, I criticised your trite and simplistic definition.

free will and religion are closely tied; virtually every religion requires belief in free will in some form, which is why I used religious examples/analogies.
Free will and philosophy are also closely tied. Can you give examples of non-Abrahamic religions which require belief in free will?

...then maybe you should start lowering your expectations for a free forum post.
Why?

btw free will is a relatively simple concept - just like determinism is, there's no real debate on what these things mean in general, which is why I said some people believe in varying degrees of free will, which accounts for almost all of the variants
It is not a relatively simple concept as the 2000+ years of debate and literature will attest.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history/
https://www.samharris.org/free-will [This one shows that the debate is still on-going, not that I rate Harris one jot]

merely being debated for thousands of years says nothing about the 'deepness' or complexity of an issue
True but it depends on the quality of the debaters and the standard of the debate. As the top two links above show, some of the 'greatest minds' of the Western intellectual tradition have been involved.

I have reasons based on experimental evidence that a scientific world view is true
You have experimental evidence for the Big Bang; for Darwinian Evolution? Care to provide some links or refs? There would be many people on this forum who would be very interested.

- objects behave according to laws, not gods.
That would depend entirely upon how one defined a 'god'. Again your thinking is being influenced and distorted by your Judeo-Christian education and culture and your ignorance of other religions and philosophies.

All physical phenomenon that we know of behaves according to some ruleset
And where and how do the rules originate? [Phenomenon = singular; phenomena = plural.]

...certain advanced countries
Do you mean those countries which are advanced enough to pollute the air, water and earth?

Consider this: Children are not born believing in Santa, they are taught to believe in him (and the associated greed and materialism).
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:11 am

@grey cloud
although I could refute your claims with ease, there would be no point in your case. I recently refuted 'a simple experiment proves pi=4' which showed me without a doubt that people can go on believing in nonsense no matter how much evidence you provide them that they are completely wrong. the requirement they, and you, are lacking, is the disbelief in superstition; you need to have a hunch that any given thing can't happen without a physical cause, otherwise your 'radar' for truth will always be misguided and we will never be speaking the same 'worldview', we will not be able to change our minds with one anothers help until you take the first step and at least recognize that one axiom.

There can be no observable evidence for any god, free will, magic, or anything else; because even if a physical cause was proposed, you would need to explain the cause of that thing (such as a deity, karma, afterlife, etc); which just further complicates existence and requires further and further explanations which are ever more elusive to tie to physical causes. There is still absolutely no way for two religious/spiritual people of differing religions/spiritual beliefs to convince one another that the other one is wrong, because they are both debating about imaginary concepts. The least popular but most neutral point of view is that they are all equally wrong, and that the universe is just how it seems without human imaginations attached to it. (the big bang theory is another human imagination, the least popular but most neutral point of view is we don't know the origin of the universe yet, it is not an answer people like, just like determinism is not an answer people like. People also don't like the idea of an asteroid wiping out life on Earth, but people not liking something doesn't mean anything.) Science is not immune to lazy thinkers polluting it with ideas like big bang theory, branes, string theory, dark matter/energy, time dilation, black holes, etc. What it is mostly immune to, is completely detached ideas from the rest of the universe; save for one line of text about how in the beginning it 'just existed and don't think about it'.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:34 pm

lw1990,
I couldn't understand most of your post but from the parts I think I understand:
If you can refute my claims with ease then please do so, I am always willing to learn the error of my ways. Not sure what claims I made though.
no matter how much evidence you provide them
You have not provided any evidence, merely asserted that the view determined by your collection of atoms and experience is correct and everyone else's atoms and predetermined views are wrong.

There can be no observable evidence for any god, free will, magic, or anything else; because even if a physical cause was proposed,
I have made no claims for the existence of god, free will or magic but how do you know there can be no observable evidence? Why does a cause have to be physical? What exactly is 'physical'? Where does the first link of your chain of cause and effect come from? Here we venture into the realm of infinite regress. Not a problem in Vedanta, Buddhism or Taoism for example.

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't mention Darwinian Evolution or my request for links pertaining to experimental evidence for it. In fact you have not directly addressed any of the responses I have made to your assertions and generalisations.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:15 pm

@grey cloud
I wish I could help you, but I cannot, I believe you may be open to new ideas, just like most people, but without the axiom of everything having a physical, real world, cause and nature, then you cannot gain much from anything I have to propose

for example, deities of all manner apparently affect our lives by things like karma, all-seeing judgement, afterlifes, souls, good and evil, free will choice, reincarnation, the list goes on. Not a shred of actual evidence in the real world (outside human imagination or texts) exists for these things; they require faith and mass hysteria (truth by mob), not scientific observation, to reinforce the notion of their existence. When you put stock in those kinds of concepts, you basically can't even sit at the table of rational discussion. Unfortunately, most people in the past and today subscribe to a handful of those concepts, some without even knowing it, the most wide-spread of which is free will; the second most wide-spread is human purpose or importance (which has been continually slapped in the face by astronomy).

It would be one thing if religions proposed that a god created everything and that was it; one and done, he's out of the picture. Instead they come up with ways we are supposed to live, morals we are supposed to have, and various other things which shape our lives from supposedly some ancient action or deity - Usually by some form of communication with the deity (who knew it was still around to talk to?), dreams, or whatever. Built on top of that is an array of other fantasy concepts which I already mentioned. I suspect there is a high number of people who already know these things are baloney deep down, when they stop to think about them, but free will and other subtle concepts often slip by this scrutiny, until you already have a bias of wanting it to be true. It's clear that we feel like we have free will, but there is arguably no strong evidence for it; no proof anywhere that we can do something free of our past, our past is what makes us who we are; so why the one-sided mindset of 99% or more of people believing it? Emotional bias, lazy thinking, and never being taught how to think rationally about existence, in other words, raised in a superstitious culture to breed more superstition.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron