Michael Egnor talks with podcaster Lucas Skrobot about how we can know we are not zombies

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 5, 2020

Mind, Neuroscience}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Also: Egnor , a neurosurgeon, told Skrobot: “My wife jokes with me that meeting me is always the worst part of a person’s life.”

Comments

ET,
You can definitely lay out apples on a table and form a one-to-one correspondence with the oranges, all without counting.
And similarly, you can lay out the squares and the primes on a table and form a one-to-one correspondence, all without counting: 1 ↔ 2 4 ↔ 3 9 ↔ 5 16 ↔ 7 25 ↔ 11 etc.daveS_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Forming a bijection does not give you the cardinality, which is a number. That is all I was saying. You can definitely lay out apples on a table and form a one-to-one correspondence with the oranges, all without counting.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

ET, "Just counting" is literally forming a set bijection. If I am counting the number of apples in a bag, I say to myself (or sometimes out loud) "one, two, three, ..." as I point to each apple. This forms a one-to-one correspondence between the first several counting numbers and the apples. If I mess up and point to the same apple twice, or if I miss an apple, then I won't end up with a set bijection and will probably get the wrong answer.daveS_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

JVL:
if one of the world’s experts on the issue at hand did not draw the conclusion that it was due to design instead of natural processes then why should I or anyone else come to the conclusion that is was due to design?
It's called knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships per Science 101. That is why you are confused. Notice said expert did not conclude that nature did it.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Whatever, daves. At least set subtraction doesn't blow my scenario to hell and force me into mental contortions.
To summarize, the set bijection (or one-to-one correspondence) method works to find the cardinality of any finite set.
What? How can you use set bijection to find the cardinality? Why don't you just count the number of elements?ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

ET,
What? You can actually count the elements. So you don’t need any other method to determine the cardinality.
That's right. For example, to count the elements of S = {a, b, c, d, e}, you form a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of S and a subset of N (aka the Counting Numbers): 1 ↔ a, 2 ↔ b, 3 ↔ c, 4 ↔ d, 5 ↔ e The largest element of N which is involved in this correspondence, 5, is the cardinality of S. To summarize, the set bijection (or one-to-one correspondence) method works to find the cardinality of any finite set.
And again, with relative sets you don’t compare disparate sets.
So Cantor's theory applies to arbitrary sets, while your theory only applies in the very special case where the sets involved are alike.daveS_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ JVL- Pattee did NOT say that nature did it. No one in their right mind would say that nature can produce the system that he described. So buy a vowel and stop being such a willfully ignorant jerk.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

JVL, if your alignment did not involve cheating then A - B should = {} and it doesn't. Set subtraction proves your alignment and inference from that alignment are wrong. It isn't my fault that you are too willfully ignorant to grasp that.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

And again, with relative sets you don’t compare disparate sets.
Which means there are lots and lots and lots of sets that ‘relative cardinality’ won’t work on.
That doesn't follow. Perhaps thinking is not your forte.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

JVL, yes you have. Including for example the undersigned and this blog. KFkairosfocus_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Going beyond, while one has a right to opinion, one does not have a right to consequential, ill founded or damaging opinions, insinuations or assertions; which breach the fundamental, natural law right to innocent reputation. That’s why defamation is a tort. I'm defaming no one. I'm expressing an opinion: if one of the world's experts on the issue at hand did not draw the conclusion that it was due to design instead of natural processes then why should I or anyone else come to the conclusion that is was due to design? That's it. No one's reputation is being harmed, no insuations are being made.JVL_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

JVL, first, UB has the better part of the now prolonged exchange. That X or Y or Z may not explicitly draw out conclusions in no way undermines that they can be well warranted. In this case, the heart of the cell is found to contain an alphanumeric, algorithmic thus linguistic and goal directed processing system. We have found the SETI signal, in the cells of our own bodies. That remains manifestly so, despite the studious refusal of SETI advocates and the like to draw the appropriate, well warranted conclusion. Going beyond, while one has a right to opinion, one does not have a right to consequential, ill founded or damaging opinions, insinuations or assertions; which breach the fundamental, natural law right to innocent reputation. That's why defamation is a tort. KFkairosfocus_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

ET: And again, with relative sets you don’t compare disparate sets. Which means there are lots and lots and lots of sets that 'relative cardinality' won't work on. Clearly.JVL_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped: Howard Pattee was immensely clear throughout his entire career that neither he nor anyone else had ever come close to solving the symbol/matter problem. THAT was his conclusion. (in other words, JVL, this frail point you keep trying to hide behind is scientifically meaningless, with a big crashing cymbal and a big booming drum). The design inference stands without any contrary observations whatsoever. Do you somehow not understand this fact? Of course you do, that is why you must ignore it. Yes, but it's your design inference not his. I saw no where that he said: well, it must be down to design then. And that is my point. If he didn't come to that conclusion then why do you? He could have easily said something about that, he had tenure, he was well respected, he's retired now so no one can touch him, he's got nothing to lose. But he doesn't come to your conclusion. If the guy who spent his whole life studying such things, who is considered one of the world experts on that stuff doesn't infer design then why should I? Why should you?JVL_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

ET: How could you line up the elements of two sets, one-to-one, so that no element of either set was left out and not have the sets be the same size? By cheating No cheating involved, I've given you plenty of examples. Why is it that set subtraction can prove there is a difference between two sets that you misaligned? There's a difference but the sets are still the same size because I can take one element from one set and pari it with one element from the other set in a pattern that goes on and on forever. No element of either set is unpaired. How can that happen if the sets are different sizes? It can't. You don’t even understand the basics. Until then just hold onto your strawmen. I understand you can only find the relative cardinality of a few sets. I know where you system fails which is how I have been able to come up with sets where you cannot find the relative cardinality. As daves pointed out above, my system goes hand-in-hand with natural density. So what? We're talking about cardinality not density. Which set is more dense the rational numbers or the real numbers? Which is more dense the Cantor set between 0 and 1 or all the rationals between 0 and 1? So it isn’t as if I just made this all up, as JVL would have you believe. I am just connecting the two- the cardinality and the natural density. Once you do that, set subtraction works on all levels to expose differences between two sets. Sets can be different and still have the same cardinality. If we can determine the natural density, we can determine the relative cardinalities. Great, try that with the primes, or the Fibonacci numbers, or the perfect numbers, or the set F = {1, 2, 6, 24, 120, 720, 5040 . . . . }, or the rational numbers. Yeah, tell us what the density of the rational numbers is. I'd like to see that.JVL_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

ET @677, I wasn't addressing any particular point of yours. I just think it's an interesting article that others may find interesting.mike1962_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

What? You can actually count the elements. So you don't need any other method to determine the cardinality. And again, with relative sets you don't compare disparate sets. I keep telling you, first things first.ET_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

ET, I think I understand the first issue. The "!=" in Bob O'H's post just means "is not equal to". He is saying that {a, b} and {1, 2} should clearly have the same cardinality, namely 2. However {a, b} - {1, 2} = {a, b}, which is not {}, so your method would say they have different cardinality. In my example, as you noted, the two sets clearly have the same "size", but again the set difference is not {}.daveS_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

. #761
Actually, I think I pointed out that the author of a source you sited came to a different conclusion than you did about the same data. Which made you very annoyed. And I still didn’t get you to say if your position was falsifiable.
Howard Pattee was immensely clear throughout his entire career that neither he nor anyone else had ever come close to solving the symbol/matter problem. THAT was his conclusion. (in other words, JVL, this frail point you keep trying to hide behind is scientifically meaningless, with a big crashing cymbal and a big booming drum). The design inference stands without any contrary observations whatsoever. Do you somehow not understand this fact? Of course you do, that is why you must ignore it.
I’m not sure our discussing the points any further would be productive do you?
Oh, I don't know. You are a smart ideologue who has been forced by the presentation of evidence and history to concede that the living cell uses a high-capacity symbol system in order to function., yet you clumsily reach into your bag of rhetoric to deny that this fact provides any evidence whatsoever of design in biology. To the average person -- each of them prolific users of symbol systems in a rapidly expanding information age -- that kind of obtuse cognitive gymnastics is rather revealing. I'm not so sure it doesn't serve a purpose to catch you from time to time making statements like you did above, and calling you out on it.
You realise that I could say the same about your stance?
No, you can't JVL, you just think you can. I will force you to stick with my words (the words I actually use when presenting the semiotic argument of design in biology) not the words you will surely attempt to put in my mouth. See the difference? Because the scientific evidence is squarely against territory you are unwilling to concede, you can't help but to assume your conclusions during the examination of that evidence. I don't have that problem, you do. You might want to remember; I have made the case several times on this site that the semiotic argument for design (via the physical evidence) can be entirely consistent with materialism. It is you and your comrades who still (even in those logical consequences) cannot allow an open acknowledgment of that physical evidence. With that said, I am prepared stand my ground, so good luck.Upright BiPed_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

JVL:
How could you line up the elements of two sets, one-to-one, so that no element of either set was left out and not have the sets be the same size?
By cheating. Why is it that set subtraction can prove there is a difference between two sets that you misaligned?
Yes but you haven’t been able to determine the relative cardinality of several sets I have asked about.
You don't even understand the basics. Until then just hold onto your strawmen. As daves pointed out above, my system goes hand-in-hand with natural density. So it isn’t as if I just made this all up, as JVL would have you believe. I am just connecting the two- the cardinality and the natural density. Once you do that, set subtraction works on all levels to expose differences between two sets. If we can determine the natural density, we can determine the relative cardinalities.ET_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

What moment? This is the asshattery I am referring to. What contradiction? I am unsure on how factorials apply to sets but I know that 2! = 2 and 1! = 1 (0! also = 1). So an explanation is due. I know that I missing something. Throwing out obscure set operations to try to catch me off-guard, to do what, exactly? In your example it is true that |A| = |B| IFF a, b, x, y are just letters in the alphabet, each equal in value to the other.ET_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

ET, Well, at the moment we are talking about finite sets. What's your resolution to the contradiction Bob O'H found? Once that's settled, then I would ask you to apply your method to: A = {a, b, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...} B = {x, y, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...} Is it true that |A| = |B|?daveS_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped: In the end you were forced to acknowledge that the cell does indeed use a symbol system in order to accomplish what it does, but just as predicted, you held firm that even the presence of that symbol system provides no evidence of design of design. Actually, I think I pointed out that the author of a source you sited came to a different conclusion than you did about the same data. Which made you very annoyed. And I still didn't get you to say if your position was falsifiable. Your reasoning? The unfalsifiable position that – despite the universal evidence otherwise – someday your beliefs will be proven correct after all. I'm not sure our discussing the points any further would be productive do you? At that point your can merely assume your conclusions against the evidence, and hide behind a non-falsifiable belief that you are correct anyway. You won’t have to “defend your ideas” or even acknowledge that your position is fundamentally non-scientific. You realise that I could say the same about your stance? You offer a lot of abstract ideas but no real physical evidence as in: workshops used by the designer, living quarters, equipment, design documents, toilets, transport, etc. There is no physical evidence of any kind of designers having been around at all.JVL_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

. So like I said JVL: you can merely assume your conclusions against the evidence, and hide behind a non-falsifiable belief that you are correct anyway. You won’t have to “defend your ideas” or even acknowledge that your position is fundamentally non-scientific.Upright BiPed_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

ET: Only after suffering such abuse and avoidance.; ; ;I don't think I was abusive or avoided issues. The problem is you can’t get past the “one set relative to another” concept with respect to infinite sets. What's top get past? How could you line up the elements of two sets, one-to-one, so that no element of either set was left out and not have the sets be the same size? With my system we have consistency from bottom to top. Set subtraction works to expose the differences between two sets that have one, some, many or all of the same elements. Then we use the mapping function to help us determine the relative cardinality. Yes but you haven't been able to determine the relative cardinality of several sets I have asked about. Whereas I can use my technique to handle the same situations. As daves pointed out above, my system goes hand-in-hand with natural density. It's not a matter of density, it's a matter of whether or not the sets have the same number of elements. And if you can line them up, one-to-one then I don't see how they can have a different number of elements. So it isn’t as if I just made this all up, as JVL would have you believe. I am just connecting the two- the cardinality and the natural density. Once you do that, set subtraction works on all levels to expose differences between two sets Well, you still haven't explained how I can line two sets up, one-to-one, and still have one set with more elements than the other. If we can determine the natural density, we can determine the relative cardinalities. Again, if I can line two sets up, one-to-one, so that no element of either set is left out, the the sets must be the same size. How else could that happen? Just explain that please.JVL_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

What example, daves? This:
And I have a counter-example: A = {1,2} B={a,b} |A| = 2 |B| = 2 |A| = |B| A != B
Finite sets. We are discussing infinite sets. Or is there something other example?ET_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

. #755
Whoa! Just a minute. Can I just ask you one question before I engage on this issue? Is there some data or evidence that would falsify your belief? I don’t have a problem with you being convinced beyond all doubt that you are right but I don’t see the point in discussing the issue with you if there’s no chance of you changing your mind.
Good grief JVL, that is the EXACT same schtick you played in our previous conversation -- the very conversation I linked to.
May 22, 2020 JVL: You have not even acknowledged that I asked how someone could falsify your position. UB: Which position of mine are you referring to? Is it the position I hold about there being no semantic qualities (a capacity to specify something among alternatives) listed among the physical properties of matter? I suppose someone could just get a Periodic Table and point them out. Or, is it my position on Charles Sanders Pierce, who reasoned 160 years ago that anything serving as a medium to signify something among alternatives must necessarily be part of a larger triadic relationship (including a symbol vehicle, a referent, and an independent “interpretant” to establish what is being signified)? Well, I suppose they could just look it up and see if there was ever a scientist / philosopher / logician named C.S. Peirce, son of Benjamin Peirce (a founding father of the Department of Mathematics at Harvard) who began writing a general theory of signs back in the 1860s. Or, is it my position that Alan Turing exemplified the physical and logical necessity of Peircean interpretants in his programmable computing machine; in that he included a “table of transitions” to systematically establish the rules that would be necessary to translate the symbols on the machine’s tape? I suppose they could look it up in Wikiworld and find out whether or not it says Turing’s machine “manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules”. Or, is it my position that John Von Neumann used the structure of Alan Turing’s symbol processing machine to predict the fundamental physical and organizational requirements of an autonomous open-ended self-replicator? I suppose on this one they could look up the history of Von Neumann’s association with Turing and his work, or they could just cut to the chase and listen to Nobel Laureate Sydney Brenner’s words on the subject (the man who was advised of Crick and Watson’s discovery in DNA and travelled to Cambridge to meet them even before the first announcement of their discovery was published; the same Sydney Brenner who along with Crick experimentally established the triplet coding structure of the gene code). Brenner was unambiguously in Von Neumann’s court until he passed last year, even using von Neumann’s successful prediction to formulate what he called “Schrödinger‘s Fundamental Error” in his classic paper “What is Life?”. He clearly recognized that Turing’s machine preceded Von Neumann’s logic about open-ended automata. So, I defer to Brenner on the matter and stand ready to have my account falsified. Or is it my position that Francis Crick himself further exemplified and confirmed the reasoning of Peirce, Turing, and Von Neumann, i.e. his successful prediction of a separate set of adapter molecules to establish the gene code? A prediction which, by the way, was confirmed by Zamecnik and Hoagland in 1958, along with the fact that the association of anticodon-to-amino acid (establishing the genetic code) is indeed separate and dynamically independent of the codon-to-anticodon association. This organization, of course, allows the system to function as it does, enabling it with the physical freedom and capacity to specify itself, or any variation of itself, in a universe governed by unchanging and inexorable law. It is in fact Polanyi’s “harnessing of inanimate nature” and Von Neumann’s evolving “automata that are more complex and of higher potentialities” than the previous generation. Here again, I guess they could just go to the history and observations, and show that the systems in question don’t necessarily include one arrangement of matter to serve as a medium of specification and a second arrangement of matter to independently establish what is being specified. Frankly, on this count, I don’t really need to supply a method of falsification, I can assure you from personal experience that design critics have come up with their own attempts in the hundreds. Or, is it my position that physicist/biologist Howard Hunt Pattee, inspired by the physical capacities of the gene system, spent five decades carefully identifying and documenting the “Physics of Symbol Systems”, noting such things as the linear, one dimensional, rate-independent nature of the medium, the requirement of non-integral constraints to establish what is being specified in the system, the measurement problem, the epistemic cut, the complementarity required in physical descriptions of such systems, the fundamental requirement of semantic closure in biology, and so on. This of course includes the observation that the gene system and human language/mathematics are the only two physical systems to ever be described by science that exemplify these observations, to the exclusion of all other physical systems. Here again, they can simply go to the history and observations and do the work of showing Pattee incorrect in his dozens upon dozens of papers on the subject – which by the way, have become bedrock research to a great number of people with inter-related interests in symbol systems, ultimately conferring a great deal of respect for both he and his life’s work. I only add this last part because of the propensity of some folks on your side to denigrate and marginalize anyone who gets in the way, and I am hoping to perhaps counter that tendency upfront with the facts of the matter. Or, in fact!!! Is it my contention that when you touch something hot it is not heat that travels through your nerves to your brain, but is a biosemiotic representation of heat (a sensory signal), which upon reaching your brain, will then and there be interpreted as “hot”. I am probably way out over my skis on this, but I don’t know. Perhaps they could try sticking a temperature probe next to a nerve and see if it gets hot. If it gets hot I will immediately retract my position, but I really don’t think that will be necessary. A bunch of “descent and intellectually honest” people have pretty much confirmed that symbolic representations are a real, and indeed, context-dependent part of physical reality. It appears from the literature that they are required for life on earth to be specified among the many alternatives (as that Dawkins fella might say). Judging by what is clearly recorded in that literature, anyone wanting to falsify that conclusion will likely need to demonstrate semantic closure in an autonomous dissipative process; one that includes a set of objects serving as a specifying medium, and a second set of objects establishing what is being specified; as well as the capacity to read the medium, successfully produce its effects, and provide a copy of the description and a set of its interpretive constraints to the next generation. True falsification, of course, turns on semantic closure because it is the specific material condition that enables the system to persist over time, and is the only reason we are here to observe and measure it. That may sound like a steep hill for falsification, but you have to be realistic and view it in context, Firstly, forget semantic closure for a moment, no one on your side has even come close to establishing a rate-independent medium via a set of independent constraints, so no one is actually holding you to any high standards when it comes to producing physically-relevant evidence. The only reason to bring up semantic closure is in exchanges with folks like yourself who come here to argue against recorded science and history in order to prop up the respectability of their worldview, and would rather not be bothered with the science and history while doing so. For someone like yourself, you in particular, someone who glibly announces there is clearly and emphatically no evidence whatsoever of design in biology (while openly refusing to address that evidence), you’re likely to hear about semantic closure more than most. JVL: I must sincerely thank you for taking the time to respond so fully. I would like to read it carefully and think about how to respond respectfully and meaningfully. So if you don’t hear from me on this matter for a while it’s because you’ve given me a lot to chew on as it were. - - - - - - - - - . . . days pass by . . . - - - - - - - - - UB: Five full days have now past, JVL. I believe your benefit of the doubt has run out. In my last comment to you I predicted (based on common history here) that you would seek an “undecidable” (or something non-falsifiable) as the basis of your response, or perhaps not respond at all. It appears we have our answer.
In the end you were forced to acknowledge that the cell does indeed use a symbol system in order to accomplish what it does, but just as predicted, you held firm that even the presence of that symbol system provides no evidence of design in biology. Your reasoning? It was the unfalsifiable position that – despite the universal evidence to the contrary – someday your beliefs will be proven correct after all.Upright BiPed_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

JVL:
ET resorts to abuse and avoidance of substantive statements.
Only after suffering such abuse and avoidance. The problem is you can't get past the "one set relative to another" concept with respect to infinite sets. With my system we have consistency from bottom to top. Set subtraction works to expose the differences between two sets that have one, some, many or all of the same elements. Then we use the mapping function to help us determine the relative cardinality. As daves pointed out above, my system goes hand-in-hand with natural density. So it isn't as if I just made this all up, as JVL would have you believe. I am just connecting the two- the cardinality and the natural density. Once you do that, set subtraction works on all levels to expose differences between two sets. If we can determine the natural density, we can determine the relative cardinalities.ET_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Unless you are a materialist ideologue coming here to challenge design theory, and suddenly find yourself confronted with universal evidence that you can’t argue against. Whoa! Just a minute. Can I just ask you one question before I engage on this issue? Is there some data or evidence that would falsify your belief? I don't have a problem with you being convinced beyond all doubt that you are right but I don't see the point in discussing the issue with you if there's no chance of you changing your mind. At that point your can merely assume your conclusions against the evidence, and hide behind a non-falsifiable belief that you are correct anyway. You won’t have to “defend your ideas” or even acknowledge that your position is fundamentally non-scientific. You know, JVL, like you did here. Let's just take things slowly and one step at a time okay? We can be reasonable people I think.JVL_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

.
you have to be able to defend your ideas and stay the course.
Unless you are a materialist ideologue coming here to challenge design theory, and suddenly find yourself confronted with universal evidence that you can’t argue against. At that point your can merely assume your conclusions against the evidence, and hide behind a non-falsifiable belief that you are correct anyway. You won’t have to “defend your ideas” or even acknowledge that your position is fundamentally non-scientific. You know, JVL, like you did here. Being a materialist is easy, and talk is cheap.Upright BiPed_{July 21, 2020
July
07
Jul
21
21
2020
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 31 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply