Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

Does consciousness survive death?

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#121  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 9:01 pm

Rubicon wrote:
darwin2 wrote:I stated "But if one is wise one should care about one’s death because the scientific reality is that one is going to die and it is a scientific reality that consciousness may survive the death of the physical body" and you replied "No, it is a blind assertion, not scientific reality." Jeepers creepers, great balls of fire, Holy Mackerel! I didn't realize it was not a scientific reality that we die. Too bad you didn't read one of my previous responses to a poster who made the same assertion as you just made. It would have saved you a lot of embarrassment!

You are deliberately paraphrasing my comments incorrectly here. Please don't do this again. I clearly said:
First you say that it is merely a possibility that consciousness persists after death.

I was very clearly referring to the unproven assertion that consciousness persists after death, not to your asinine strawman that "it is not a scientific reality that we die". Where the hell did you get that idea?

Then you state science doesn't deal with ethics, it deals with reality. I have a strong feeling that scientists would disagree with you on this.

Are you using some kind of bullshit generator? Please provide evidence that ethics is un unmistakeable part of scientific inquiry. If you can't, I'll consider this another one of your vapid assertions.

However if you are correct and a scientist stole another scientist's work or secretly screwed his best friend's wife or extorted the funds from some science club, science would not give a damn about these actions because science doesn't deal with ethics.

My god, you really are getting desperate here. What the hell has this got to do with the scientific method? Please learn the difference between science and individual scientists.

I know our planet is in deep trouble but if you are correct it is a lot worse than I thought.

You're definitely spot on with this one. Judging from your posts, a basic understanding of what science is and what it does is apparently sorely lacking. Deeply troubling indeed.

Now please be so kind as to answer the following question, which multiple posters have asked you and which you have sofar failed to answer:

What arguments, other than emotional attachment to the idea, do you have that your claim about the possibility that consciousness may persist after death is less absurd than the possibility of invisible blue baboons on Saturn, or purple fig leaves the size of Wales? What, other than your personal opinion on what does or what doesn't constitute an absurd claim, do you have to offer?

EDIT: typo.


I stand by the post you seem to be so irritable about,

Science is using testable data that is organized so as to explain the natural world and make predictions on how it works. I also look upon science as the study of energy and matter and how they interact. If it turns out that consciousness continues after death, then science will study this after death state in the same manner it does in this physical world
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#122  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 9:14 pm

gleniedee wrote:


I am not an atheist so you will have to ask an atheist that question.


Why on earth would you do that? Atheism in not a world view,philosophy or ideology,merely a disbelief in god(s), offering no answers to any questions. Making no claims, the atheist attracts no burden of proof and needs to explain exactly nothing.That honour belongs 100% the person making the claim(s).

My disbelief in the soul and an afterlife has the same base as my atheism; lack of evidence.You believe? Wonderful! Want me to believe? No problem, simply show me your evidence. If you're unable to do that,stop wasting my time and go away..


Obviously you haven't read any of my previous posts or at best only a few. I wonder if you even read my opening statement. For the record I am not trying to convert you to anything. I am only asking you to agree it is possible for consciousness to continue after death. Do you agree that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death? You don't need evidence to answer in the affirmative. There is no evidence at this point in time to support the existence of consciousness after death or its cessation at death. Any rational scientist will agree that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death and I include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens here. So once again, Do you believe it is possible for consciousness to continue after death?
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#123  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 9:29 pm

trubble76 wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
trubble76 wrote:

I have highlighted the things you said that you seem to have forgotten about.


I have no idea what you are talking about. Please clarify.


I was calling you on the inaccurate things you said, highlighting the contradictions in your posts. I'm sorry it's beyond you, even though it's all written down in front of you.
Some might take it as dishonesty, I reserve judgement.


Unfortunately a tragedy has taken place here. The quote buttom leaves out my quote that you quoted. My quote that was left out is this."I never stated that those who require evidence are deluded. I did state those who say it is impossible for consciousness to continue after death are deluded." Now please enlighten me on the inaccuracy of my statement.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#124  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 9:37 pm

my_wan wrote:
Weaver wrote: ... but that doesn't mean it isn't pointless to even discuss it, without at least a hypothesized mechanism of action to make the possibility within the realm of reality.

darwin2,
Weaver made a key statement here: "hypothesized mechanism". The fact that a claim can not be absolutely proved to be false does not make the hypothesis that it is true scientific. To make make it scientific you must either provide a hypothetical mechanism that can be tested, or provide a method of testing the claim itself. Merely claiming a lack of proof is scientific is in itself silly. So hypothesize away... just drop the lack of evidence as meaning anything one way or the other scientifically.

That, my man, IS the "correct scientific approach" per the OP. So let's hear said scientific hypothesis...


Sir, to reiterate for the 1,987, 684 time, I never stated that consciousness continues after death. I stated it is possible for it to continue after death and I made a"suggestion and only a suggestion" that if consciousness continues after death I recommend the use of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to explore this after death reality.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#125  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 9:39 pm

orpheus wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
orpheus wrote:

(bold mine)

You keep saying that, and I wonder if you and many of us are talking at cross purposes. So- what exactly do you mean by "it is possible"? That nobody has proved it impossible? That you've thought of a way it could happen? What?


Possible means it could take place. Yes I thought of a way it could happen. I die and find myself conscious in an after death reality.


Others have recently dealt with the question of what is meant by "possible". So I'll address the second part. I asked if you thought of a way it could happen - if you'd thought of a way consciousness could survive after death. You said "Yes I thought of a way it could happen. I die and find myself conscious in an after death reality."

That's like this:

Q: Have you thought of a way to get through to the other side of this really complicated maze?
A: Yes, I thought of a way. I look around me and find myself on the other side of it.

Do you see the problem? You didn't really answer my question.


No, my answer is satisfactory.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#126  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 9:46 pm

trubble76 wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
Steve wrote:If consciousness does not end then what dies? And if consciousness does not end then what would you suggest we do differently? Are you suggesting we drink the poison and die, for example?


Only one's physical body dies if consciousness continues after death. I suggest one lead a full life by being ethical, studying the sciences, enjoying family, friends and nature and occasionally thinking about one’s death and preparing oneself to use the Scientific Method to explore the after death reality if one finds oneself in this after death reality.


The Scientific Method limits itself to this existance. We have superstition to deal with any others.


That is very true. But if consciousness continues after death it will be this existence and the Scientific Method would be a good tool to use to explore this existence.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#127  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 9:48 pm

my_wan wrote:
tytalus wrote:Ok, so if the best darwin2 can do is repeat himself, knowing that these vague awareness questions would never pass muster in a dictionary, much less in a scientific investigation...we have arrived at the end of this, more adventures in the land of what is logically possible.

Unfortunately darwin2 can't even explain why it's logically possible. He can only insist that we can't prove it's impossible.


I only insist it is logically possible!
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#128  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 10:02 pm

Weaver wrote:OK, I'm going to take another stab at this - tell me if I'm on the right track, won't you?

It's possible that, when we die, we will suddenly learn the reality of the afterlife. It is further possible that this afterlife will involve running about in huge marijuana fields. This is not a time to be alarmed - it is quite unlikely that one would have to take drug tests in the afterlife. But the large quantities of marijuana should be viewed as being put there for your pleasure - and you should take advantage of it. Look around yourself ... be aware of your surroundings. Any lightning strikes in the area? Any flint nodules, which could be used to strike a spark? If quantities are sufficient, simply piling the buds on a small fire should provide the necessary smoke, although fashioning a pipe shouldn't be difficult.

Now, we are all rationalists here (geez, THAT was hard to type with a straight face ... but I digress). We should logically consider the appropriate course of action to assess and deal with our surroundings. Given the large quantities of marijuana, and the presumed presence of fire, only one method suggests itself. Lamaze.

Deep, cleansing breaths. Draw them in and hold, then pant when exhaling. You should feel separated from any pain, yet have a deep awareness of yourself and what is happening.

It's all possible, isn't it? After all, we have evidence that marijuana exists in this world. In fact, it cannot be proven that marijuana doesn't exist in an afterlife - so I assess the odds as 50%:50%. Pretty good chance to roll up a spliff after you're dead - after all, that's a great time to get mellow about things, isn't it?
Once again - sounds pretty fucking stupid, doesn't it? Notice the similarities?


I have spent the last two hours analyzing your post. I have come up with 55 conclusions about your post. All say your post is silly and totally irrelevant to this thread.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#129  Postby SafeAsMilk » Nov 16, 2010 10:05 pm

darwin2 wrote:
my_wan wrote:
tytalus wrote:Ok, so if the best darwin2 can do is repeat himself, knowing that these vague awareness questions would never pass muster in a dictionary, much less in a scientific investigation...we have arrived at the end of this, more adventures in the land of what is logically possible.

Unfortunately darwin2 can't even explain why it's logically possible. He can only insist that we can't prove it's impossible.


I only insist it is logically possible!


I also suggest that it is logically possible that an invisible pink unicorn exists, since there is no evidence that they don't exist. She must exist or she must not. Since there is no evidence either way, then there is a 50% chance that the invisible pink unicorn exists! Thusly, let's discuss what we should do when we meet her. Should we use the scientific method? There's a high probability that she'd like that.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14774
Age: 42
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#130  Postby gleniedee » Nov 16, 2010 10:47 pm

No, I haven't read all of your posts,I wasn't aware it was mandatory.

I am only asking you to agree it is possible for consciousness to continue after death. Do you agree that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death


Of course it's logically possible.It's also possible aliens will land in the mall this afternoon,and more likely than survival of any kind after death. I base my position on the lack of evidence of so far in recorded history.
gleniedee
 
Name: glen dee
Posts: 575
Age: 74
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#131  Postby orpheus » Nov 16, 2010 11:04 pm

Weaver wrote:OK, I'm going to take another stab at this - tell me if I'm on the right track, won't you?

It's possible that, when we die, we will suddenly learn the reality of the afterlife.  It is further possible that this afterlife will involve running about in huge marijuana fields.  This is not a time to be alarmed - it is quite unlikely that one would have to take drug tests in the afterlife.  But the large quantities of marijuana should be viewed as being put there for your pleasure - and you should take advantage of it.  Look around yourself ... be aware of your surroundings.  Any lightning strikes in the area?  Any flint nodules, which could be used to strike a spark?  If quantities are sufficient, simply piling the buds on a small fire should provide the necessary smoke, although fashioning a pipe shouldn't be difficult.

Now, we are all rationalists here (geez, THAT was hard to type with a straight face ... but I digress).  We should logically consider the appropriate course of action to assess and deal with our surroundings.  Given the large quantities of marijuana, and the presumed presence of fire, only one method suggests itself.  Lamaze.

Deep, cleansing breaths.  Draw them in and hold, then pant when exhaling.  You should feel separated from any pain, yet have a deep awareness of yourself and what is happening.

It's all possible, isn't it?  After all, we have evidence that marijuana exists in this world.  In fact, it cannot be proven that marijuana doesn't exist in an afterlife - so I assess the odds as 50%:50%.  Pretty good chance to roll up a spliff after you're dead - after all, that's a great time to get mellow about things, isn't it?
Once again - sounds pretty fucking stupid, doesn't it?  Notice the similarities?


Image
“A way a lone a last a loved a long the”

—James Joyce
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 57
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#132  Postby Rubicon » Nov 16, 2010 11:21 pm

darwin2 wrote:
Rubicon wrote:What arguments, other than emotional attachment to the idea, do you have that your claim about the possibility that consciousness may persist after death is less absurd than the possibility of invisible blue baboons on Saturn, or purple fig leaves the size of Wales? What, other than your personal opinion on what does or what doesn't constitute an absurd claim, do you have to offer?


I stand by the post you seem to be so irritable about,

Science is using testable data that is organized so as to explain the natural world and make predictions on how it works. I also look upon science as the study of energy and matter and how they interact. If it turns out that consciousness continues after death, then science will study this after death state in the same manner it does in this physical world

Are you deliberately being obtuse here? This doesn't answer my question at all. I asked why you think your proposed claim about consciousness persisting after death is less absurd than the ones about invisible blue baboons on Saturn and purple fig leaves the size of Wales? What objective criteria do you use to determine that your claim is less absurd, and should therefore be considered more worthy as an area of scientific investigation? What do you have to offer, other than your opinion and your emotional attachment to your idea?
User avatar
Rubicon
 
Posts: 366
Age: 44

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#133  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 11:24 pm

Weaver wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
Weaver wrote:
Can you PROVE that all humans must die?

Of course not - proving a negative is impossible. But you must therefore grant that, while unlikely, it is POSSIBLE for a human to live forever, right? Don't go on about what you learned in school, or what science says - these are the same people telling everyone that consciousness is a function of a living brain, and stops when the brain stops. They have no proof, and can not get it until they die - at which point it may be too late. But if we simply find a human who lives forever, he will (or she will) be able to learn the answer in time.

Yeah - it sounds stupid. It's meant to. It's just like your argument that consciousness could survive the brain's death - it's POSSIBLE. Technically, ANYTHING is POSSIBLE ... but that doesn't mean it isn't pointless to even discuss it, without at least a hypothesized mechanism of action to make the possiblity within the realm of reality.


Yes, it is possible that humans may attain immortality. Ray Kurzweil thinks it is possible and I agree with him. If this happens according to scientists like Kurzweil, human intelligence will be light years ahead of what it is now. If there is an afterlife I believe humans who have reached that high level of intelligence will have had the technology to study the after physical life and may have the ability to decide if they want to stay in their physical form or enter an afterlife form if it exists. If this turns out to true, they will choose whatever form gives them the most satisfaction.

Ah, but according to your "logic", humans could be immortal right now! In fact, every single person you know could be immortal - and anyone you think died could have actually gone off to live in East Timor without your knowledge!

Anything is possible, after all ...


Don't you see yet that unbridled pursuit of the "possible", without rational limits imposed by observed reality, doesn't lead anywhere?


I agree with your quote “Ah, but according to your "logic", humans could be immortal right now! In fact, every single person you know could be immortal - and anyone you think died could have actually gone off to live in East Timor without your knowledge!” Could is the correct word to use.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#134  Postby chairman bill » Nov 16, 2010 11:25 pm

darwin2, your understanding of statistics & probability is erroneous. That said, let's entertain the vague possibility that consciousness survives death; in that case, yes, the scientific method might well be our best bet in terms of understand the new reality of survival of bodily death. But then again, it might not. The scientific method works in our material universe. In a non-material existence, who knows what laws may or may not apply? Maybe then our best guide will be some magical intution, with science leading us astray.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28354
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#135  Postby CookieJon » Nov 16, 2010 11:36 pm

Oh boy I'm sorry I missed this one.

:popcorn:
User avatar
CookieJon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 8384
Male

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#136  Postby orpheus » Nov 16, 2010 11:41 pm

CookieJon wrote:Oh boy I'm sorry I missed this one.

:popcorn:


Join the fun!

:popcorn:

(Uncle Orph'sTM popcorn - "for a good time, call Uncle Orph." )
“A way a lone a last a loved a long the”

—James Joyce
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 57
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#137  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 11:43 pm

byofrcs wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
byofrcs wrote:

The mechanism that you described was not reincarnation. Also with reincarnation very few suppose that you retain your memories of the day-to-day life from this current life. You retain some rolled up assessment (e.g. karma) of your life implicitly in how you come back thus a bad person comes back lower down the pecking order in the karma.

As a materialist I already subscribe to the concept of information theoretic death. Your consciousness is formed from a combination of your memories and a platform that gives you sufficient sense data (i.e. your body). You may be physically dead but you are not completely dead until the memories i.e. the information that makes the "you" is sufficiently destroyed. In most cases this is usually one in the same thing but in some cases the physically dead have been recovered (e.g. children who have had their body temperature reduced from extreme hypothermia so they are clinically dead have been brought back to life). To me when that information is destroyed then your are dead and there is no mechanism in this universe that can recover that information. Same as erasing a hard disk. The information is gone forever.

To suggest that your information survives the destruction of the media in which it is stored presumes the supernatural exists. Does that work for hard disks ?. Last summer I had a 500 Gig portable hard disk get knocked off the table by my dog. Will the data on it be floating about in some afterlife ? I had duplicates of the data but it was annoying. It was SATA disk - I don't know if this helps.

Without evidence for this supernatural realm anything said about what happens in that is complete conjecture. Face facts - you're going to die and you will cease to exist. It is far better to plan for that then conjecture your survival. Using the "scientific method" as some pixie dust to add verisimilitude to your conjecture is nonsensical given the "scientific method" is methodical naturalism and so the supernatural realm just doesn't exist for that. If it did work out as you describe then (well excluding the time I spend looking for my 72 virgins) we would look at the world around us the same as we look at the world now. For most people that would revolve around sex, food and drink.


Sir, you are stating your own personal subjective beliefs on this issue. Your belief on this issue is not a scientific fact. Any rational scientist will tell you that you are wrong. Subjectively they may believe you are correct. However objectively they will tell you your statement is incorrect.


Which statement ? Be precise. Your Emmental of an OP has so many holes in it we wouldn't want something important falling through the gaps.


Here are the precise statements you asked for.

To me when that information is destroyed then your are dead and there is no mechanism in this universe that can recover that information. Same as erasing a hard disk. The information is gone forever. Objectively speaking, this is false unless he knows everything about the universe.

Face facts - you're going to die and you will cease to exist. Objectively speaking this statement is also false. Yes my physical body is going to die but it is possible my consciousness may continue. Even Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens would agree with me.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#138  Postby Goldenmane » Nov 17, 2010 12:18 am

darwin2 wrote:
Goldenmane wrote:
darwin2 wrote:

Are you aware that you asked me this question "What the fuck is "consciousness?" Are you aware that you made the statement [b2]"Define it, then we'll talk?"

If you answer yes to both questions, you have my definition of consciousness..


That wasn't a rigorous definition. It was specious hand-waving. That shit went out of fashion about mid-last-century.

Apply some fucking rigour to your formulation of ideas. Define, clearly, "consciousness".

I don't think you can. The reason I don't think you can is because it's only just beginning to really start to become clear (through the studies pursued by neuroscientists of various kinds) how to properly frame the appropriate questions, and I've seen no indication that you understand anything about the last couple of decades or so of such work.

Good luck. If you can clearly define consciousness and give compelling evidence to support the notion that it is in no way tied to the physical processes of the brain, and in fact continues after death, I'm fairly sure you're going to change the entire world.

I don't, however, think this is going to happen.


Once again let me repeat what I told you in a previous post when you asked me to define consciousness. I stated:

Are you aware that you asked me this question "What the fuck is "consciousness?" Are you aware that you made the statement "Define it, then we'll talk?"

If you answer yes to both questions, you have my definition of consciousness..


I've told you and others over and over that I never stated there is evidence at this moment in time to demonstrate that consciousness continues after death. I only contend that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death and if It does I suggest the Scientific Method to explore this new reality.


Right, so you can't.

Glad we cleared that up.
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

http://goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com/
User avatar
Goldenmane
 
Posts: 2383

Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#139  Postby Steve » Nov 17, 2010 1:00 am

The Egg
By: Andy Weir

You were on your way home when you died.
It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.
And that’s when you met me.
“What… what happened?” You asked. “Where am I?”
“You died,” I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.


more
As your desire is, so is your will.
As your will is, so is your deed.
As your deed is, so is your destiny
Blue Mountain Center of Meditation
User avatar
Steve
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6908
Age: 67
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#140  Postby my_wan » Nov 17, 2010 1:15 am

darwin2 wrote:
my_wan wrote:
Weaver wrote: ... but that doesn't mean it isn't pointless to even discuss it, without at least a hypothesized mechanism of action to make the possibility within the realm of reality.

darwin2,
Weaver made a key statement here: "hypothesized mechanism". The fact that a claim can not be absolutely proved to be false does not make the hypothesis that it is true scientific. To make make it scientific you must either provide a hypothetical mechanism that can be tested, or provide a method of testing the claim itself. Merely claiming a lack of proof is scientific is in itself silly. So hypothesize away... just drop the lack of evidence as meaning anything one way or the other scientifically.

That, my man, IS the "correct scientific approach" per the OP. So let's hear said scientific hypothesis...


Sir, to reiterate for the 1,987, 684 time, I never stated that consciousness continues after death. I stated it is possible for it to continue after death and I made a"suggestion and only a suggestion" that if consciousness continues after death I recommend the use of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to explore this after death reality.

But, as I previously noted, I had no problem with that claim alone. What is at issue in that response was that such a possibility has any scientific meaning. Thus, I was merely telling you what it would take to give it scientific meaning, so that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD was even possible.
User avatar
my_wan
 
Posts: 967
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests