|
On July 10 2013 01:38 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 01:10 DoubleReed wrote:On July 10 2013 00:29 Signet wrote:On July 10 2013 00:12 DertoQq wrote:On July 09 2013 23:03 googolplex wrote:
I have a question to all those who claim that the mind is all physical.
What triggers this initial electrical and chemical impulses? You could ask the same question about a plant. A plant can turn to face the sun and other cool stuff, what did triggers those chemical impulses ? Exactly. A neuroscientist or botanist could explain those specific examples in elaborate detail, but the broader story is that it is the result of millions of years of a long, slow evolution. Over vast lengths of time, organisms picked up these adaptations. Now our DNA contains code in it that constructs a brain including the structures required for the electrical and chemical impulses that allow it to function. This sort of topic is really going to give you a gut-check on whether you both fully grasp and fully accept the implications of that theory. The human brain is the most complex thing that the biology on this planet has ever produced. It was not done in a single step, but rather the result of countless incremental iterations beginning with simple proteins that one might never have imagined would produce a structure with the apparent capacity to create and implement its own goals. Regardless of whether "free will" "really exists" or not, this is quite remarkable. It should also be mentioned that brains are highly malleable, allowing creatures to adapt rapidly to new situations where they may normally perish. A brain is constantly taking in stimulus from other parts of the body, the outside world, and the brain itself, so "what starts the reaction?" is far more complicated a question than it initially sounds. Edit: now that I think about it, this is getting into Inception territory.... I don't think it is THAT complicated. Signet summed it up pretty well. I just don't get where is the need to go into philosophical stuff, because if you just follow all the steps, it all seems very logical and natural to me. I mean... yes, you could explain why an apple is red using metaphysical reasons and I couldn't prove that you are wrong, but do you really need to do that when you have a logical answer right in front of you ?
I wasn't talking philosophically. For example, if I wanted to exercise my "free will" and hang up an adorable kitten poster on my wall, that involves concepts like aesthetics, kittens, and adorability. I have to interact with the environment with my hands and eyes, etc.
Where the idea comes from is kind of complicated, isn't it? It probably eventually comes down to the initial understanding that kittens are adorable, but that's how the majority of my thought processes originate.
|
Strictly speaking, whether or not QM is "random" depends a lot on what you mean by the term and on your interpretation of QM. It certainly appears to us to be probabilistic, and we know that there are no feasible local hidden variable theories, but it's literally impossible to prove that a sequence of arbitrary data is random, since doing so would require an infinite amount of data.
That said, everything we do know about QM suggests that it's definitely probabilistic and is consistent with how randomness would look.
|
QUOTE]On July 09 2013 19:43 Tobberoth wrote:
On July 09 2013 15:52 wherebugsgo wrote:
To say you have no control, none whatsoever, over your decision making process (because of no-will) is to state that you accept an idea that is incompatible with reality as we know it.
Why do you say that? I'd say its completely compatible with reality as we know it, since everything we know has a cause, it makes sense decisions will too. I mean... have you ever made a decision without any form of cause or reasoning?[/QUOTE]
Yes. People do this all the time lol.
Like for example when hanging up a poster of adorable kittens on a wall.
Studys have shown that the reasoning for an action is often made after the action, more as a tool to justify the action in hindsight, then as the original impulse for the action.
Are you telling me that every decission you make you make after reasoning?
"since everything we know has a cause"
No, there are quiet a few events in physics wich have no known cause at all, and most people agree that this is not simply because we dont know the cause, but because there is no cause.
|
On July 10 2013 02:03 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 19:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 09 2013 15:52 wherebugsgo wrote:
To say you have no control, none whatsoever, over your decision making process (because of no-will) is to state that you accept an idea that is incompatible with reality as we know it. Why do you say that? I'd say its completely compatible with reality as we know it, since everything we know has a cause, it makes sense decisions will too. I mean... have you ever made a decision without any form of cause or reasoning? Yes. People do this all the time lol. Like for example when hanging up a poster of adorable kittens on a wall. Studys have shown that the reasoning for an action is often made after the action, more as a tool to justify the action in hindsight, then as the original impulse for the action. Are you telling me that every decission you make you make after reasoning? "since everything we know has a cause" No, there are quiet a few events in physics wich have no known cause at all, and most people agree that this is not simply because we dont know the cause, but because there is no cause.
Eh...it's not really accurate to say there are "uncaused" things in physics. There are always criteria/restrictions which limit the situation substantially. For example, different elementary particles have different mean lifetimes, which implies that, for some reason, one elementary particle tends to decay more rapidly than another.
If causality was violated in one instance, it would necessarily be violated in all instances, because it would be rational and expected that any and all things can happen spontaneously. It doesn't really make sense to say that certain things can be uncaused in distinctly different ways, IMO, because that suggests that some innate difference in those things affects the uncaused event.
|
On July 10 2013 02:03 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 19:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 09 2013 15:52 wherebugsgo wrote:
To say you have no control, none whatsoever, over your decision making process (because of no-will) is to state that you accept an idea that is incompatible with reality as we know it. Why do you say that? I'd say its completely compatible with reality as we know it, since everything we know has a cause, it makes sense decisions will too. I mean... have you ever made a decision without any form of cause or reasoning? Yes. People do this all the time lol. Like for example when hanging up a poster of adorable kittens on a wall. Studys have shown that the reasoning for an action is often made after the action, more as a tool to justify the action in hindsight, then as the original impulse for the action. Are you telling me that every decission you make you make after reasoning? "since everything we know has a cause" No, there are quiet a few events in physics wich have no known cause at all, and most people agree that this is not simply because we dont know the cause, but because there is no cause.
You are always hanging up a poster for a reason. You might not be aware of it, and you might be ridiculed for it and then come up with a reason in hindsight, but you don't magically decide to hang up a poster of adorable kittens. Hell, the very fact that you have a poster with adorable kittens to hang on your wall is a cause.
|
On July 10 2013 01:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 01:38 DertoQq wrote:On July 10 2013 01:10 DoubleReed wrote:On July 10 2013 00:29 Signet wrote:On July 10 2013 00:12 DertoQq wrote:On July 09 2013 23:03 googolplex wrote:
I have a question to all those who claim that the mind is all physical.
What triggers this initial electrical and chemical impulses? You could ask the same question about a plant. A plant can turn to face the sun and other cool stuff, what did triggers those chemical impulses ? Exactly. A neuroscientist or botanist could explain those specific examples in elaborate detail, but the broader story is that it is the result of millions of years of a long, slow evolution. Over vast lengths of time, organisms picked up these adaptations. Now our DNA contains code in it that constructs a brain including the structures required for the electrical and chemical impulses that allow it to function. This sort of topic is really going to give you a gut-check on whether you both fully grasp and fully accept the implications of that theory. The human brain is the most complex thing that the biology on this planet has ever produced. It was not done in a single step, but rather the result of countless incremental iterations beginning with simple proteins that one might never have imagined would produce a structure with the apparent capacity to create and implement its own goals. Regardless of whether "free will" "really exists" or not, this is quite remarkable. It should also be mentioned that brains are highly malleable, allowing creatures to adapt rapidly to new situations where they may normally perish. A brain is constantly taking in stimulus from other parts of the body, the outside world, and the brain itself, so "what starts the reaction?" is far more complicated a question than it initially sounds. Edit: now that I think about it, this is getting into Inception territory.... I don't think it is THAT complicated. Signet summed it up pretty well. I just don't get where is the need to go into philosophical stuff, because if you just follow all the steps, it all seems very logical and natural to me. I mean... yes, you could explain why an apple is red using metaphysical reasons and I couldn't prove that you are wrong, but do you really need to do that when you have a logical answer right in front of you ? I wasn't talking philosophically. For example, if I wanted to exercise my "free will" and hang up an adorable kitten poster on my wall, that involves concepts like aesthetics, kittens, and adorability. I have to interact with the environment with my hands and eyes, etc. Where the idea comes from is kind of complicated, isn't it? It probably eventually comes down to the initial understanding that kittens are adorable, but that's how the majority of my thought processes originate.
I was more talking to everyone in this topic, I don't necessarily disagree with what you said. For the kitten, I would say it is complicated, but complicated in the way a game of starcraft is complicated, not "logically complicated". There is just too much variables, but the concept is simple.
|
Eh...it's not really accurate to say there are "uncaused" things in physics. There are always criteria/restrictions which limit the situation substantially. For example, different elementary particles have different mean lifetimes, which implies that, for some reason, one elementary particle tends to decay more rapidly than another.
If causality was violated in one instance, it would necessarily be violated in all instances, because it would be rational and expected that any and all things can happen spontaneously. It doesn't really make sense to say that certain things can be uncaused in distinctly different ways, IMO, because that suggests that some innate difference in those things affects the uncaused event
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anny and all things can happen spontaneously? isnt that one of the findings of the quantum mechanics?
Of course there are restrictions, the odds of some things happening are extremely small.
If everything has a reason and a cause, then what is the cause of the universe exiting?
Or rather: what was the cause of the first event ever?
You can go along way by explaining it with a big bang, wich is the result of a big crunch of a previous universum, and so on but you will always stay with the remaining question wich caused the first big bang of the cycle, or whatever different theory you can think of to explain the universe.
It is not that difficult to accept that things can and do happen without a cause, it is the only possible explanation for the universe to exist.
|
On July 10 2013 02:28 Rassy wrote:
Eh...it's not really accurate to say there are "uncaused" things in physics. There are always criteria/restrictions which limit the situation substantially. For example, different elementary particles have different mean lifetimes, which implies that, for some reason, one elementary particle tends to decay more rapidly than another.
If causality was violated in one instance, it would necessarily be violated in all instances, because it would be rational and expected that any and all things can happen spontaneously. It doesn't really make sense to say that certain things can be uncaused in distinctly different ways, IMO, because that suggests that some innate difference in those things affects the uncaused event
Anny and all things can happen spontaneously? isnt that one of the findings of the quantum mechanics?
Of course there are restrictions, the odds of some things happening are extremely small.
If everything has a reason and a cause, then what is the cause of the universe exiting?, or rather: what was the cause of the first event ever?
You can go along way by explaining it with a big bang, wich is the result of a big crunch of a previous universum, and so on but you will always stay with the remaining question wich caused the first big bangs of the cycle, or whatever different theory you can think of to explain the universe.
It is not that difficult to accept things can happen without a cause.
The only way
There's a difference between "there must be a first cause" and "any and all things can happen spontaneously." It's very clear that most events appear to have causes, especially those operating at a macroscopic level. Considering we've observed essentially zero macroscopic "uncaused" events, it seems incredibly speculative to claim that any and all things can happen. If they can only happen exceedingly rarely, why is that? Why is it that they happen exceedingly rarely and not exceedingly commonly?
We have no consensus on what caused the universe, or if the universe had a cause, or what it even means to cause the universe. We likely won't ever have a consensus until we understand quantum gravity.
I'm very wary of taking quantum explanations of causality and facelifting them onto macroscopic events, because it's still a somewhat cloudy area.
|
On July 09 2013 22:42 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 18:55 Reason wrote:
Wherebugsgo, am I mistaken or are you claiming to have proven:
1.the universe is not deterministic
2.we have free-will
???
I'm inclined to believe the opposite personally, I'd be interested if you'd explain why you believe each as concisely as possible. he's not saying that. he's saying: - if the universe is deterministic (not PREdetermined) then free will exists and that is it. all other future conclusions that could be drawn from that statement are based on your future standings/claims/opinions. it's exactly what i said earlier in the thread. in a nutshell: determinism is the 0 logic and free will is the 1 logic. you need both to write a code. one without the other is nonsense. + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LJcQIUm.jpg) from A to B you have determinism; from B to C you have free will; from C to D you have determinism and so on and so forth. evolution in digital ones and zeros
I'll wait for his (wherebugsgo) response if he's kind enough to give it. I don't trust your interpretation on anything to be quite honest with you.
On July 10 2013 01:14 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 22:42 xM(Z wrote:On July 09 2013 18:55 Reason wrote:
Wherebugsgo, am I mistaken or are you claiming to have proven:
1.the universe is not deterministic
2.we have free-will
???
I'm inclined to believe the opposite personally, I'd be interested if you'd explain why you believe each as concisely as possible. he's not saying that. he's saying: - if the universe is deterministic (not PREdetermined) then free will exists and that is it. all other future conclusions that could be drawn from that statement are based on your future standings/claims/opinions. it's exactly what i said earlier in the thread. in a nutshell: determinism is the 0 logic and free will is the 1 logic. you need both to write a code. one without the other is nonsense. + Show Spoiler +from A to B you have determinism; from B to C you have free will; from C to D you have determinism and so on and so forth. evolution in digital ones and zeros There's literally no reason at all to feel this way. If determinism is the correct way to explain the universe, there's zero space for free will. Deterministic systems are defined by their way of producing the same output given an initial state, which denies the very "free" part of free will.
Has it not been discussed repeatedly that determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive?
Again this all depends on your definition of free will...
On July 10 2013 01:51 DaCruise wrote:
If our brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldnt.
./thread
Whoever said that is wrong.
./you
|
A lot of this type of discussion is based on confused categories and false alternatives. The claim that a person is made up of atoms is very different from the claim that a person is only atoms. What is this supposed to mean, "only"? If you put a person through a meat grinder, the atoms are still there and the person isn't, so it's obviously not true that the person was "only" atoms.
When you ask whether the mind is a "product" of brain chemistry, you introduce a conceptual dualism that has no empirical basis. The one cannot be the product of the other because the two don't exist independent of each other. They are two ways to conceptualize the same thing. The impression of impoverishment comes from the idea that the physical level is somehow a more genuine reality than the mental level as it is experienced by us, and this idea is merely due to a specific culture and scientific tradition. There is no rational reason for it. The assumption that, given comprehensive data and processing power, a person could be modeled and explained purely in terms of physics is a powerful one in modern science, but it is only an assumption. For the time being, nobody is anywhere near being able to prove it.
I myself, as someone with great interest in science, have never really understood the impoverishment/disentchantment problem. The more I learn, the more glorious and unfathomable the universe (the tiny and still gigantic part of it that I have access to, that is) looks to me.
|
yes i agree that on a macro scale everything has a cause,I asume macro events are the result of so manny stochastic events that there wont be anny significant deviation from the expected and most likely outcome.
am stricly speaking about the most elementary events and when you look the universe at the most elementary level then things seem to happen without cause, at least according to our most popular current understanding of the universe.
It was a huge mental leap for physics to come to such a conclusion and the idea was not easily accepted. it is verry counter intuitive, but most physicians have accepted this vieuw by now i thought?
(and pls do correct me if i see this wrong)
Our thoughts are not realy a macro event though? Imo it is not that far sought to think that our thoughts are affected by random events, wich itself have no cause.
Still the question about the universe puzzles me,though you maybe could avoid the problem by considering that time stretches into the future and into the past for eternity, then everything can have a cause since there is no first event.
I would much rather prefer that things can happen without a cause though. This to avoid the infiniti of time, wich is for me the most frightening thought i ever had.
As a kid i was awake for nights and crying because of this idea, i could imagine the universe and with it time, ending in a big crunch, only to start a new cycle. An infinite amount of cycles was the result and there was the dreaded infinity again.
I could then avoid infinity by asuming that these cycles where curved and a 5 dimensional universe apeared,(in wich our 4 dimensional universe was the more or less equivalent of what an elemental particle is in our universe) after a huge amount of cycles of 5 dimensional universes leading to infiniti again, i could in my mind curve this again and a 6 dimensional universe apeared.(in wich the 5 dimensional universe is an "elemental particle") And so on till an infinity dimensional universe.I have still not found a way out of this final infinity, and it is one of the last questions i have remaining for myself. Some people say infinity is a concept wich is impossible for our mind to comprehend, and i have to agree that they are probably right, still i try to find a way out for myself.
There must be some way to curve these multi dimensional objects back into a single dimension.
Forget about the last alinea btw lol,its not to serious. i just added it to give some background on what drives my search
Has it not been discussed repeatedly that determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive?
Free will,the option to choose not restraint by fate,and determinism are mutually exclusive?
This keeps popping up because people use different definitions of free will i will just ignore the whole isue because of this.
|
On July 10 2013 02:55 FrogOfWar wrote:
A lot of this type of discussion is based on confused categories and false alternatives. The claim that a person is made up of atoms is very different from the claim that a person is only atoms. What is this supposed to mean, "only"? If you put a person through a meat grinder, the atoms are still there and the person isn't, so it's obviously not true that the person was "only" atoms.
When you ask whether the mind is a "product" of brain chemistry, you introduce a conceptual dualism that has no empirical basis. The one cannot be the product of the other because the two don't exist independent of each other. They are two ways to conceptualize the same thing. The impression of impoverishment comes from the idea that the physical level is somehow a more genuine reality than the mental level as it is experienced by us, and this idea is merely due to a specific culture and scientific tradition. There is no rational reason for it. The assumption that, given comprehensive data and processing power, a person could be modeled and explained purely in terms of physics is a powerful one in modern science, but it is only an assumption. For the time being, nobody is anywhere near being able to prove it.
I myself, as someone with great interest in science, have never really understood the impoverishment/disentchantment problem. The more I learn, the more glorious and unfathomable the universe (the tiny and still gigantic part of it that I have access to, that is) looks to me.
Your original premise is completely flawed/biased.
If you take a pencil and put it through (an atomic) meat grinder, the atoms are still there but the pencil isn't. The exact same can be said for a human, which has nothing to do with there being something more than the just physical when it comes to the human mind. A pile of atoms that once was a pencil is no longer a pencil. (alternatively, the pencil is still there and so is the human, whichever you prefer)
Your argument = I'm right because I'm right = not an argument at all.
afaik it's believed time was created along with the universe, so thinking of time stretching to infinity before and after the universe is simply a misunderstanding of the concept of time itself.
|
On July 10 2013 02:03 Rassy wrote:
Yes. People do this all the time lol.
Like for example when hanging up a poster of adorable kittens on a wall.
Studys have shown that the reasoning for an action is often made after the action, more as a tool to justify the action in hindsight, then as the original impulse for the action.
Ah, but that doesn't prove anything about free will.
Yes, rationalisation is performed after a choice is made, but that could simply be the oone 'level' of your brain doing its best to understand and incorporate input from its own inner workings.
EG: recoiling at the sight of a large spider - the wiring that triggers that response is not 'known' to the conscious part of the brain. If you never see a spider in your life your conscious mind will never know that bit of your brain is even there, right? After the reaction occurs your conscious mind will try to come up with an explanation which may well not include the existence of an instinctive core to the brain.
Similarly, can you imagine anyone ever going out to buy a poster of kittens having never seen a kitten before? You might go and look at a poster of kittens if someone told you there were such things, but the impulse to buy and hang up the poster is contingent upon your reaction to the sight.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 10 2013 02:59 Rassy wrote:
yes i agree that on a macro scale everything has a cause,I asume macro events are the result of so manny stochastic events that there wont be anny significant deviation from the expected and most likely outcome.
With the exception of events that are extremely sensitive to micro-scale, such as a neural impulse.
|
On July 10 2013 03:02 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 02:55 FrogOfWar wrote:
A lot of this type of discussion is based on confused categories and false alternatives. The claim that a person is made up of atoms is very different from the claim that a person is only atoms. What is this supposed to mean, "only"? If you put a person through a meat grinder, the atoms are still there and the person isn't, so it's obviously not true that the person was "only" atoms.
When you ask whether the mind is a "product" of brain chemistry, you introduce a conceptual dualism that has no empirical basis. The one cannot be the product of the other because the two don't exist independent of each other. They are two ways to conceptualize the same thing. The impression of impoverishment comes from the idea that the physical level is somehow a more genuine reality than the mental level as it is experienced by us, and this idea is merely due to a specific culture and scientific tradition. There is no rational reason for it. The assumption that, given comprehensive data and processing power, a person could be modeled and explained purely in terms of physics is a powerful one in modern science, but it is only an assumption. For the time being, nobody is anywhere near being able to prove it.
I myself, as someone with great interest in science, have never really understood the impoverishment/disentchantment problem. The more I learn, the more glorious and unfathomable the universe (the tiny and still gigantic part of it that I have access to, that is) looks to me. Your original premise is completely flawed/biased. If you take a pencil and put it through (an atomic) meat grinder, the atoms are still there but the pencil isn't. The exact same can be said for a human, that is of course unless you believe there is something more than the just physical when it comes to the human mind. (alternatively, the pencil is still there and so is the human, whichever you prefer)
I agree, the point I made applies to the pencil as well. The question stands: is the pencil "only" atoms? What does that mean? The claim that it's "only" atoms is empty and useless.
Your argument = I'm right because I'm right = not an argument at all.
No idea where I said something that sounds like "I'm right because I'm right" to you.
afaik it's believed time was created along with the universe, so thinking of time stretching to infinity before and after the universe is simply a misunderstanding of the concept of time itself.
Speaking of time, mine is to valuable to me for anonymous pissing at each other on the internet. Cya.
|
A pencil is simply simples arranged pencil-wise!!!
Sadly it's rather useless to discuss things in the context of mereological nihilism...
|
On July 10 2013 03:25 FrogOfWar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:02 Reason wrote:On July 10 2013 02:55 FrogOfWar wrote:
A lot of this type of discussion is based on confused categories and false alternatives. The claim that a person is made up of atoms is very different from the claim that a person is only atoms. What is this supposed to mean, "only"? If you put a person through a meat grinder, the atoms are still there and the person isn't, so it's obviously not true that the person was "only" atoms.
When you ask whether the mind is a "product" of brain chemistry, you introduce a conceptual dualism that has no empirical basis. The one cannot be the product of the other because the two don't exist independent of each other. They are two ways to conceptualize the same thing. The impression of impoverishment comes from the idea that the physical level is somehow a more genuine reality than the mental level as it is experienced by us, and this idea is merely due to a specific culture and scientific tradition. There is no rational reason for it. The assumption that, given comprehensive data and processing power, a person could be modeled and explained purely in terms of physics is a powerful one in modern science, but it is only an assumption. For the time being, nobody is anywhere near being able to prove it.
I myself, as someone with great interest in science, have never really understood the impoverishment/disentchantment problem. The more I learn, the more glorious and unfathomable the universe (the tiny and still gigantic part of it that I have access to, that is) looks to me. Your original premise is completely flawed/biased. If you take a pencil and put it through (an atomic) meat grinder, the atoms are still there but the pencil isn't. The exact same can be said for a human, that is of course unless you believe there is something more than the just physical when it comes to the human mind. (alternatively, the pencil is still there and so is the human, whichever you prefer) I agree, the point I made applies to the pencil as well. The question stands: is the pencil "only" atoms? What does that mean? The claim that it's "only" atoms is empty and useless. No idea where I said something that sounds like "I'm right because I'm right" to you. Show nested quote +
afaik it's believed time was created along with the universe, so thinking of time stretching to infinity before and after the universe is simply a misunderstanding of the concept of time itself.
Speaking of time, mine is to valuable to me for anonymous pissing at each other on the internet. Cya.
Cya? Pissing? That's a pretty pathetic attitude to adopt...
|
It means it's a collection of atoms arranged in a way that is useful, specifically for writing and poking people in the eye. The "claim" that it's only atoms isn't a claim, it's a fact
I consider this a direct contradiction, because "arrangement" is incredibly important. Rearranging atoms leads to completely different molecules, for instance. Rearranging organs is the difference between life and death, which we presumably care about.
I would say that a pencil is certainly not just atoms, because arrangement is far from trivial.
|
There are also different kinds of atoms !
and elementary particles in general 
|
^Give this man a lollipop and a gold star! 
On July 10 2013 04:00 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +It means it's a collection of atoms arranged in a way that is useful, specifically for writing and poking people in the eye. The "claim" that it's only atoms isn't a claim, it's a fact I consider this a direct contradiction, because "arrangement" is incredibly important. Rearranging atoms leads to completely different molecules, for instance. Rearranging organs is the difference between life and death, which we presumably care about. I would say that a pencil is certainly not just atoms, because arrangement is far from trivial.
Yes the arrangement is important but that doesn't change the fact that the pencil is comprised of atoms and nothing else, and once arranged there is nothing more than "just" or "only" a collection of atoms, albeit usefully arranged. I made that clear. There is no contradiction in what I said, direct or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
