Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Poll: Do you have free will?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
YES, I DO have free will, in the sense that it is ultimately up to me, or ultimately my choice, which actions I take and when.
52.38%
11 52.38%
NO, I do NOT have free will, in the sense that it is NOT ultimately up to me, and NOT ultimately my choice, which actions I take and when.
47.62%
10 47.62%
Total 21 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does free will exist?
#51

Does free will exist?
(11-06-2018, 06:08 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote: If people really believe free will is an illusion, they must think people are naturally delusional.

Thumbs Up

The fact is, we are naturally delusional concerning a great many things. Ask a caveman (whom I hold up as an exemplar for how humans "naturally" think) if the color green exists on the leaf or in our brains, and he will say "On the leaf."

But that isn't true. It took a great deal of science and philosophy for us to arrive at this conclusion, but this (rather counterintuitive) conclusion is nonetheless true.

The question metaphysicians ask is: Is this also the case with free will?
The following 2 users Like vulcanlogician's post:
  • Yonadav, GirlyMan
Reply
#52

Does free will exist?
Hey Yonadav...

The "appearance" of free will = free will, for practical, debating purposes.

No need to over-complicate stuff with semantics. Appearance commonly means the
display, presence or actualisation of something.

Your repetitive, personal reinterpretation of common-usage words is becoming tiring,
and makes your comments difficult to respond to easily.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#53

Does free will exist?
Circumstances dictated that I respond "yes" to this question.
" I have nothing to say and I am saying it and that is poetry. "
                                                                                 -- John Cage
The following 1 user Likes Dr H's post:
  • GirlyMan
Reply
#54

Does free will exist?
(11-06-2018, 06:47 PM)Yonadav Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 10:58 PM)Yonadav Wrote: I think that we tend to conflate the appearance of free will with being uncomfortable with the idea of not having free will. I know that not everyone's experience has been the same as mine. However, I also know that as my discomfort with the idea of not having free will faded, the appearance of free will became less convincing. I became a lot more aware of the factors behind my choices. The more I became aware of the factors behind my choices, the less my choices appeared to be the product of free will.  The appearance of free will will literally fade if looked at in a very critical way.

The above is a statement about appearances.  It is not a statement about whether free will exists or not.

All of the above is relevant to the debate about where the burden of proof lies. If wanting to have free will enhances the appearance of free will, while not positively wanting free will diminishes the appearance of free will, then the appearance of free will might be the product of bias. So it is not clear which side of the debate has the burden of proof.
Reply
#55

Does free will exist?
(11-05-2018, 10:25 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:
(11-05-2018, 08:41 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: Determinism isn't a property or a law of nature. It is an assumption about the universe... that everything follows the laws of cause and effect. And it is a pretty well-founded assumption if I may say.

Sorry, but that obviously doesn't follow if free will exists in a materialistic universe.  Appearances say free will does exist, and extrapolations from science are presently insufficient to say appearances aren't realities.  (I guess I'm going to have to read and summarize that second book again.)


I have grave reservations about accepting a biologist's say so about free will, at least as it pertains to the consequence argument. Why? All biology presupposes the laws of physics. It is the laws of physics that an incompatibilist sees as making free will impossible. That being said, I haven't read the particulars of his argument, and I'd be open-minded about reading/responding to anything you present. But unless a biologist can show that living organisms (at an atomic level) do not follow the laws of cause and effect, then I don't see how his arguments would sway me from my position.

***

Arguing against incompatibilists' reductionism is a good route to take.

What I like about your position is that you are arguing from a libertarian free will perspective. Unless you are in a philosophy classroom, hardly anyone argues libertarianism; it's all compatibilists and incompatibilists on the interwebs. FWIW, I respect those who take your position more than I do compatibilists. In his essay The Dilemma of Determinism, William James (a libertarian free willist) calls compatibilism a "quagmire of evasion." Compatibilists basically ignore the consequence argument and assert (by fiat) that free will can exist in a deterministic universe.

Anyway, in his essay, James agrees with your criticism of reductionism and delivers his perspective in the most beautiful way possible. I may try to locate the passage and post it here if I get the energy.

***

I hadn't much considered who has the burden of proof in the free will argument before you brought it up. But (unfortunately) a cursory romp through google doesn't bode well for your assertion that incompatibilists carry the burden. We can delve into this more if you wish. I am going to examine more of the literature and see if there is any compelling defense for my side carrying the burden. That being said, I don't much care who has the burden of proof in the debate. I care what the truth is. Debate is about testing ideas. It is about seeing if any logical arguments can force us from our positions. It is not about who is correct unless the other side can prove otherwise (at least not to me).

Quote:Some people confuse where the “Burden of Proof”  actually is with the free will debate. The Burden of Proof places the onus on the person making a claim to justify that claim with evidence. Some seem to think that because people experience a feeling of free will, that they don’t hold a Burden of Proof. This is not the case. The feeling of possessing free will is not evidence for the actual ability of free will. The only thing the feeling proves is that they have a feeling of free will. It does not prove the existence of free will anymore than the appearance that trains get smaller and eventually vanish at the horizon proves [they do].
...
Basically, the person who claims that “Free Will Exists” is making a positive assertion that they hold the Burden of Proof for. But the Hard Determinist or Hard Incompatibilist often take on the Burden of Proof to “Prove a Negative”. That means they are willing to take on a burden to disprove the positive claim that free will exists.
https://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/...fographic/
The following 1 user Likes vulcanlogician's post:
  • Yonadav
Reply
#56

Does free will exist?
(11-06-2018, 09:36 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: All biology presupposes the laws of physics.

Presupposes, yes.  Reduces to, no.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • vulcanlogician
Reply
#57

Does free will exist?
(11-06-2018, 09:50 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:
(11-06-2018, 09:36 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: All biology presupposes the laws of physics.

Presupposes, yes.  Reduces to, no.

Can of worms there.

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/05/is-...ysics.html
The following 2 users Like vulcanlogician's post:
  • Alan V, Yonadav
Reply
#58

Does free will exist?
(11-06-2018, 10:21 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(11-06-2018, 09:50 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:
(11-06-2018, 09:36 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: All biology presupposes the laws of physics.

Presupposes, yes.  Reduces to, no.

Can of worms there.

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/05/is-...ysics.html

From your article:

"What would it mean for a science (biology, say) to be truly irreducible in this way? Wouldn't it mean that the science depended somehow upon the non-physical? If so, isn't that a problem?"

The problem for reductionists is to realize that emergent materialism is actually descriptive of material (not non-physical) realities.  This means that new properties observably emerge from new arrangements of matter, properties which can't be predicted from an understanding of their components.  The simplest example of this, which I have used repeatedly in similar arguments, is salt.  Salt is a combination of chlorine, a poisonous gas, and sodium, a metal.  Neither has properties which could anticipate the properties they gain when combined together to make salt.  Similarly, all of the matter which makes up living organisms is still dead.  Life is the result of their combination in a certain way.  Finally, the human brain is the most complex object in the known universe.  Such complexity is no doubt required to create the remarkable property of consciousness, among other new properties.  Consciousness observably doesn't exist without the special conditions made possible by its complexity.

To illustrate all of this simply, a living bird can fly.  However, if you take it apart it can't.  The whole truly is greater than the parts, so reductionists are observably wrong.
Reply
#59

Does free will exist?
(11-06-2018, 10:34 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:
(11-06-2018, 10:21 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(11-06-2018, 09:50 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote: Presupposes, yes.  Reduces to, no.

Can of worms there.

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/05/is-...ysics.html

From your article:

"What would it mean for a science (biology, say) to be truly irreducible in this way? Wouldn't it mean that the science depended somehow upon the non-physical? If so, isn't that a problem?"

The problem for reductionists is to realize that emergent materialism is actually descriptive of material (not non-physical) realities.  This means that new properties observably emerge from new arrangements of matter, properties which can't be predicted from an understanding of their components.  The simplest example of this, which I have used repeatedly in similar arguments, is salt.  Salt is a combination of chlorine, a poisonous gas, and sodium, a metal.  Neither has properties which could anticipate the properties they gain when combined together to make salt.  Similarly, all of the matter which makes up living organisms is still dead.  Life is the result of their combination in a certain way.  Finally, the human brain is the most complex object in the known universe.  Such complexity is no doubt required to create the remarkable property of consciousness, among other new properties.  Consciousness observably doesn't exist without the special conditions made possible by its complexity.

To illustrate all of this simply, a living bird can fly.  However, if you take it apart it can't.  The whole truly is greater than the parts, so reductionists are observably wrong.

Although it would be entirely unnecessary, given enough time and energy, a physicist with knowledge of the atom could explain the emergent properties in sodium chloride or why birds fly (the latter is physics to begin with).

To your other point, complexity is no reason to postulate the existence of unproven forces or entities. (I'm sure you've spent enough time debating theists to know how such an approach can lead one astray.)
Reply
#60

Does free will exist?
(11-06-2018, 10:58 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: Although it would be entirely unnecessary, given enough time and energy, a physicist with knowledge of the atom could explain the emergent properties in sodium chloride or why birds fly (the latter is physics to begin with).

To your other point, complexity is no reason to postulate the existence of unproven forces or entities. (I'm sure you've spent enough time debating theists to know how such an approach can lead one astray.)

Your first sentence merely derives from the assumption of determinism.  Until you prove it actually true, you are no closer to proving determinism true.  I, as usual, prefer to go by observations rather than speculations.  Determinists jump to far too many conclusions for my comfort level.

About your second paragraph: I think determinists have a much better chance of requiring a teleological universe than emergentists, since they can't seem to get their minds around the idea of combinations of matter becoming self-organizing by mere chance (rather than a determined evolution somehow embedded in the laws of physics).  The latter gets uncomfortably close to divine foresight, unless you also admit that the laws of physics were self-organized by chance -- by what worked.  (Somewhere you have to admit to chance occurrences to remain a strict materialist.)
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • vulcanlogician
Reply
#61

Does free will exist?
(11-05-2018, 04:10 AM)GirlyMan Wrote: The deterministic argument against free will seems moot to me in light of the empirical neurological evidence coupled with the Copenhagen Interpretation.

On the point about neurological evidence, it goes both ways. Besides, the point is moot largely due to what I've been discussing with Thoreauvian.


But I'm curious, how does the Copenhagen Interpretation suggest that free will exists?
The following 1 user Likes vulcanlogician's post:
  • GirlyMan
Reply
#62

Does free will exist?
We choose from multiple choices depending on our own self programming.

Call that free will or not free will. Makes no difference to me. Smile
The following 1 user Likes Snoopy's post:
  • GirlyMan
Reply
#63

Does free will exist?
(11-20-1974, 06:52 AM)vulcanlogician Wrote: But I'm curious, how does the Copenhagen Interpretation suggest that free will exists?

I think it suggests it doesn't. I could be wrong though. Smile
Amor fati.
The following 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post:
  • vulcanlogician
Reply
#64

Does free will exist?
(11-08-2018, 01:38 AM)Snoopy Wrote: We choose from multiple choices depending on our own self programming.

Call that free will or not free will. Makes no difference to me. Smile

That's got it.
Amor fati.
Reply
#65

Does free will exist?
(11-08-2018, 02:39 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:
(11-20-1974, 06:52 AM)vulcanlogician Wrote: But I'm curious, how does the Copenhagen Interpretation suggest that free will exists?

I think it suggests it doesn't. I could be wrong though. Smile

Wow. I totally missed that. So what about the Copenhagen Interpretation suggests free will doesn't exist?
Reply
#66

Does free will exist?
Free will?

Much, and in many cases all, depends on:

When you were born (Middle ages, industrial revolution, 80 years ago, 20 years ago, just fell off the turnip truck...)
Where you were born 
Who your parents were (matters in oh so many ways)
temperature requirements (easily met or not)
nutritional requirements (easily met or not)

All of you assume that we are talking about people who are privileged to make any choices, whether they have basis in real time free will or whether the choices are predetermined with/without predetermined outcomes. Many of us never have any choices, depending on the conditions above. That's the first line of resistance to the existence of free will in any individual human life. 

Then you have DNA.  I am not schooled in this and won't be able to properly demonstrate the huge influence this has on individual lives and the existence of free will for these individuals. I understand that even whether you like coffee or tea is predetermined in your DNA. But, that is a whole science that I am not prepared to argue about.

Then there is imprinting, the formation of the concept of reality in infants and toddlers and so on. Chocolate or vanilla ice cream? If it's not in your DNA or in your imprinting, you're going to be a poor decision maker who has issues ordering/choosing.

Now we are down to real time decision making. Flight or fight? Hmmm, DNA via hormones. And so forth. Lots of situations to be evaluated.


Personally, I think we have some free will that allows us to change course when necessary. But I think, in view of all the other conditions, this is reserved for situations were there is a lack of previous input or where all else fails.


That is my personal take on all of this.
[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#67

Does free will exist?
Free will is not the same as freedom. We have free will even if we have only two bad options to choose between.

The evolutionary point of free will is that not everything can be automated. If you were a fish, you would be less likely to survive if you always grabbed the worm regardless of whether it had a hook in it or not. Thus the need to evaluate situations, to go by reasons and probabilities, and not just conditioned or biologically determined cues.
Reply
#68

Does free will exist?
(11-12-2018, 01:02 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote: Free will is not the same as freedom.  We have free will even if we have only two bad options to choose between.

The evolutionary point of free will is that not everything can be automated.  If you were a fish, you would be less likely to survive if you always grabbed the worm regardless of whether it had a hook in it or not.  Thus the need to evaluate situations, to go by reasons and probabilities, and not just conditioned or biologically determined cues.

There are many times when humans have no choice. Unless you call it a choice when a baby dying of starvation blinks to avoid having a fly land on it's eye. First of all, free will is a privilege.
[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#69

Does free will exist?
(11-12-2018, 01:11 PM)Dom Wrote:
(11-12-2018, 01:02 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote: Free will is not the same as freedom.  We have free will even if we have only two bad options to choose between.

The evolutionary point of free will is that not everything can be automated.  If you were a fish, you would be less likely to survive if you always grabbed the worm regardless of whether it had a hook in it or not.  Thus the need to evaluate situations, to go by reasons and probabilities, and not just conditioned or biologically determined cues.

There are many times when humans have no choice. Unless you call it a choice when a baby dying of starvation blinks to avoid having a fly land on it's eye. First of all, free will is a privilege.

No, I don't call reflexes free will.  In fact, I wish we were discussing the extent to which our actions are determined versus when they are our real choices, rather than arguing as if strict determinism was a real possibility.  I consider the latter messing with the discriminations we make in our choices of the words we use to describe our experiences.
Reply
#70

Does free will exist?
(11-12-2018, 05:48 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:
(11-12-2018, 01:11 PM)Dom Wrote:
(11-12-2018, 01:02 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote: Free will is not the same as freedom.  We have free will even if we have only two bad options to choose between.

The evolutionary point of free will is that not everything can be automated.  If you were a fish, you would be less likely to survive if you always grabbed the worm regardless of whether it had a hook in it or not.  Thus the need to evaluate situations, to go by reasons and probabilities, and not just conditioned or biologically determined cues.

There are many times when humans have no choice. Unless you call it a choice when a baby dying of starvation blinks to avoid having a fly land on it's eye. First of all, free will is a privilege.

No, I don't call reflexes free will.  In fact, I wish we were discussing the extent to which our actions are determined versus when they are our real choices, rather than arguing as if strict determinism was a real possibility.  I consider the latter messing with the discriminations we make in our choices of the words we use to describe our experiences.

I do see a margin left for what I call "real time decisions" and you call "free will". It's all based on decisions the way I see it, decisions our ancestors passed on via DNA, decisions we made as infants and growing up about current reality ( called " imprinting" )  and a very small margin of real time decisions that are processed when needed.
[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Reply
#71

Does free will exist?
(11-12-2018, 06:13 PM)Dom Wrote: I do see a margin left for what I call "real time decisions" and you call "free will". It's all based on decisions the way I see it, decisions our ancestors passed on via DNA, decisions we made as infants and growing up about current reality ( called " imprinting" )  and a very small margin of real time decisions that are processed when needed.

Strict determinists want to eliminate consciousness from the causal loop.  They maintain that our decisions are all made unconsciously by our DNA, social conditioning, or whatever.  They offer no plausible evolutionary explanation for the role consciousness actually plays in day-to-day living.  To them, it's just an elaborate epiphenomenon, and any apparent conscious choice we make is an illusion.  Why they maintain this is beyond my understanding, since any evolutionist should be able to offer reasonable explanations for the variety of functions consciousness actually performs.

From my perspective, consciousness plays a vital selective function, which through focus allows us to mentally practice and build up useful habits for more automatic-seeming performances later.  Plus it also allows us to monitor and correct those automatic performances in real-time.  We couldn't even drive down the highway without paying attention, let alone switch between our various habitual responses so that we are using the right ones at the right times.  Consciousness allows us to select whatever behavior is called for in any given situation, since we humans have such a wide range of possible reactions to any given stimulus.  Consciousness also allows us to reason out future choices by selecting and giving weight to the variables involved.  Usually any given conscious decision was made long before it is called for in an actual situation.

Perhaps determinists have a difficulty in recognizing these functions because they think consciousness must mean self-consciousness.  In other words, they think they should already be aware of such functions if their own consciousness is involved in them.  However, such introspection is its own discipline and is not typically required for the functions consciousness performs.
Reply
#72

Does free will exist?
(11-12-2018, 08:49 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:
(11-12-2018, 06:13 PM)Dom Wrote: I do see a margin left for what I call "real time decisions" and you call "free will". It's all based on decisions the way I see it, decisions our ancestors passed on via DNA, decisions we made as infants and growing up about current reality ( called " imprinting" )  and a very small margin of real time decisions that are processed when needed.

Strict determinists want to eliminate consciousness from the causal loop.  They maintain that our decisions are all made unconsciously by our DNA, social conditioning, or whatever.  They offer no plausible evolutionary explanation for the role consciousness actually plays in day-to-day living.  To them, it's just an elaborate epiphenomenon, and any apparent conscious choice we make is an illusion.  Why they maintain this is beyond my understanding, since any evolutionist should be able to offer reasonable explanations for the variety of functions consciousness actually performs.

From my perspective, consciousness plays a vital selective function, which through focus allows us to mentally practice and build up useful habits for more automatic-seeming performances later.  Plus it also allows us to monitor and correct those automatic performances in real-time.  We couldn't even drive down the highway without paying attention, let alone switch between our various habitual responses so that we are using the right ones at the right times.  Consciousness allows us to select whatever behavior is called for in any given situation, since we humans have such a wide range of possible reactions to any given stimulus.  Consciousness also allows us to reason out future choices by selecting and giving weight to the variables involved.  Usually any given conscious decision was made long before it is called for in an actual situation.

Perhaps determinists have a difficulty in recognizing these functions because they think consciousness must mean self-consciousness.  In other words, they think they should already be aware of such functions if their own consciousness is involved in them.  However, such introspection is its own discipline and is not typically required for the functions consciousness performs.

I am not a pure determinist because, while I give most of the decisions to a lower consciousness, inborn or imprinted, I do leave room for real time decisions, or perhaps a better word is adaptations. But I consider most of what you call consciousness awareness. You are aware of the traffic while you listen to music and think of the place you are headed. You don't have to be aware of your foot to hit the break pedal. It's imprinted. If you had to be aware of everything you do, you'd go bonkers.
[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
The following 2 users Like Dom's post:
  • Alan V, vulcanlogician
Reply
#73

Does free will exist?
(11-12-2018, 09:15 PM)Dom Wrote: I am not a pure determinist because, while I give most of the decisions to a lower consciousness, inborn or imprinted, I do leave room for real time decisions, or perhaps a better word is adaptations. But I consider most of what you call consciousness awareness. You are aware of the traffic while you listen to music and think of the place you are headed. You don't have to be aware of your foot to hit the break pedal. It's imprinted. If you had to be aware of everything you do, you'd go bonkers.

What you call imprinted I call habituated, and consciousness plays a key role in creating habits.  Just think of how hard you had to pay attention when you were just learning to drive, before driving became habituated.  And yes, depending on where we are driving, we can pay attention to music instead.  But if we get to some more challenging bit, like looking for a specific address in some neighborhood we haven't visited before, we usually turn off the music so we aren't distracted from paying the required attention.

As for the difference between consciousness and awareness, I consider consciousness a variety of awareness -- awareness filtered through a self-concept.  I don't consider consciousness the self, as many spiritualists do.  That is reifying the self-concept IMO.

I think the reason why determinists maintain that consciousness is not causally effective is because if they did, they would no longer have an argument.  It's trivially obvious that we can control how we pay attention from moment to moment, just by moving our eyes, turning our head, or simply selecting out one voice in a crowded room.  Through focus, we can control what we experience as well as what we react to.
Reply
#74

Does free will exist?
(11-13-2018, 02:43 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:
(11-12-2018, 09:15 PM)Dom Wrote: I am not a pure determinist because, while I give most of the decisions to a lower consciousness, inborn or imprinted, I do leave room for real time decisions, or perhaps a better word is adaptations. But I consider most of what you call consciousness awareness. You are aware of the traffic while you listen to music and think of the place you are headed. You don't have to be aware of your foot to hit the break pedal. It's imprinted. If you had to be aware of everything you do, you'd go bonkers.

What you call imprinted I call habituated, and consciousness plays a key role in creating habits.  Just think of how hard you had to pay attention when you were just learning to drive, before driving became habituated.  And yes, depending on where we are driving, we can pay attention to music instead.  But if we get to some more challenging bit, like looking for a specific address in some neighborhood we haven't visited before, we usually turn off the music so we aren't distracted from paying the required attention.

As for the difference between consciousness and awareness, I consider consciousness a variety of awareness -- awareness filtered through a self-concept.  I don't consider consciousness the self, as many spiritualists do.  That is reifying the self-concept IMO.

I think the reason why determinists maintain that consciousness is not causally effective is because if they did, they would no longer have an argument.  It's trivially obvious that we can control how we pay attention from moment to moment, just by moving our eyes, turning our head, or simply selecting out one voice in a crowded room.  Through focus, we can control what we experience as well as what we react to.


I must insist on imprinting being what I am talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)

It occurs only very early in life and involves no conscious thoughts. It is time limited, it can only occur in the very young.
[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Reply
#75

Does free will exist?
(11-13-2018, 02:49 PM)Dom Wrote: I must insist on imprinting being what I am talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)

It occurs only very early in life and involves no conscious thoughts. It is time limited, it can only occur in the very young.

You also wrote this:

(11-12-2018, 09:15 PM)Dom Wrote: You don't have to be aware of your foot to hit the break pedal. It's imprinted. If you had to be aware of everything you do, you'd go bonkers.

In this instance, you are referring to habituation rather than imprinting.  I understand imprinting as a separate concept which is instinctual, but as you say it can only occur in the very young.

No, we can't be aware of everything we do.  Thus the long, slow process of building up useful habits, during which it is a struggle for us to pay the necessary attention. That's a different process than imprinting.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)