Friday, 20 February 2009
Friday, 13 February 2009
Consciousness
For a recent psychology essay I had the rather unreasonable task of answering a question on the nature of consciousness. Is that really fair? That I should have to solve life's greatest riddle for something like 2% of my undergratuate degree?
Well turning a negative into a positive I realised that the essay would possibly be of interest to readers of the the Biomatrix, particularly with its relevance to consciousness uploads. So read on and enjoy but don't expect to find any of the usual whimsy. Think that's heavy going? Try writing the bloody thing.
Is consciousness distinct from the biological function of the brain?
There are several theories on the nature of consciousness, most of which can be categorized as dualist or monist (cited in Velmans, 2000). Dualist theories of consciousness state that it is something separate from, or additional to, the basic workings of the brain and physical phenomena in general. Concepts such as a ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ are examples of dualistic beliefs. Meanwhile, monism states that there is only one type of substance, with materialists maintaining that this one substance is the physical world we see around us, and that consciousness is tied to the physical workings of the brain. By this reasoning consciousness is no different from any other physical phenomena. There is some evidence and many theories supporting both these camps and currently no widely accepted explanation for how consciousness arises or what exactly it is. This essay will examine arguments both for and against the idea of consciousness as distinct from the functioning of the brain.
The philosopher Rene Descartes (famous for the quote ‘Cogito, ergo sum – I think therefore I am’) was one of the first philosophers to analyse the nature of consciousness in a rational way (cited in Revonsonsuo & Kamppinen, 1994). Here he reasoned that consciousness was separate from the material world as firstly, unlike consciousness, other objects are unable to think or make decisions, and secondly, unlike other objects, it is not possible to describe the properties of consciousness/a thought – for example its location or size (you can’t for example say what colour your ideas are). This offered early support for dualism and gave rise to the school of thought known as ‘Cartesian dualism’ where the physical world is characterised by its extension in space, by which definition consciousness must be something else non-physical. Many religions consider this nonphysical substance to be a ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’.
The belief that humans have a spirit or soul is known as ‘substance dualism’, where consciousness is entirely separate from the body and so in theory could exist independently (cited in Velmans, 2000). This is the stance taken up by many religions such as Christianity where it is believed we have a separate soul that can survive even after the physical death of our bodies to live on in ‘hell’ or ‘heaven’. Incidences of out of body experiences (OBEs) and near death experiences (NDEs) have been taken as evidence supporting substance dualism. An OBE is characterised by a sensation in which an individual feels that they are somehow ‘floating’ out of their body. Sometimes they may claim to be able to see things from a different angle as a result, or even to be able to ‘travel’ in this spirit form while their bodies remain static.
Studies looking into the ability of patients to remotely view pieces of paper etc during out of body experiences have proven inconclusive however leading many such as Susan Blackmore (1998) to claim that nothing actually leaves the body during such experiences. Much like sleep paralysis or dreams, OBEs or NDEs could be caused by unusual activity in the brain. This is seemingly supported by studies that show that OBEs can be purposefully induced in patients (Blanke & Thut, 2007). In particular this has been achieved by magnetically stimulating the temporal lobes of the brain which are known to be related to visuo-spatial awareness, multi-sensory integration and self awareness.
On the other hand, reducing consciousness to the physical activity of the brain (materialism) is a form of ‘reductionism’; the act of reducing phenomenon to their most fundamental aspects. In the philosophy of mind this school of materialism is known as ‘type-identity theory’, where simply: brain state A results in conscious experience B. Here experiences are caused simply by the firing of neurons with specific neurons corresponding to specific sensations. This is seemingly supported by studies where patients’ exposed brains have been stimulated by electrodes resulting in their reporting a variety of subjective experiences including vivid flashbacks (Penfield & Perot, 1963). Further, studies using split brain patients (where the corpus callosum and other connective tissue between the brain’s hemispheres has been severed) has shown dissociation of awareness. For example when shown two words, one in each visual field, they are found to only be capable of reporting those in the right visual field – presumably as the left hemisphere is both responsible for the right visual field and, critically, speech (cited in Revonsonsuo & Kamppinen, 1994). This has been interpreted in a variety of ways; as there being two separate streams of consciousness – one for each hemisphere (Sperry, 1984), or as there being just one – that of the vocal left hemisphere (Gazzaniga et al, 1977). One philosopher, Puccetti (1988), went as far as to claim that we all constantly have two simultaneous consciousnesses but that it only becomes evident under such circumstances.
Regardless, these studies and others focusing on various other forms of brain damage, seem to support the idea that consciousness is inextricably tied to the functioning of the brain. If consciousness truly is simply a function of the brain, then it should be possible for neuroscientists to pinpoint its location and many have tried. Some psychologists have equated consciousness simply to language (Julian Jaynes, 1976), which would suggest that it is seated in the left-hemisphere where language is located (which interestingly concurs with Gazzaniga’s explanation of the split brain patients). Critics of this theory however point out that animals, and even some non-speaking humans (such as feral children or deaf/dumb patients) appear conscious without the need for language. While it is hard to imagine thought without language, it certainly need not be present for ‘choice’ to occur (the ‘intentionality’ aspect of consciousness (Brentano, 1995)) which seems to be a fundamental aspect of what we consider consciousness to be.
Much of our higher brain function, such as language and cognition, seems to be handled by our pre-frontal cortex with the more menial tasks such as breathing being left to our brain stems (cited in Pinel, 2006). It is certainly possible therefore to presume that consciousness might be generated within the frontal areas of the brain and many legion studies seem to support this idea. For example patients in persistent vegetative states exhibit less activity in the cortex, and furthermore this is often as a result of a severance between the cortex and brain stem.
This idea also seems to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, with more basic organisms having no or small underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes. However is this then to say that they are without consciousness? The danger here is that we mistake intelligence for consciousness. Another popular argument is that consciousness is actually the result of various brain areas functioning in unison and that it can not be isolated to one region (John, 2001).
One criticism for type-identity theory in general however is ‘multiple realisability’, put forward by Hilary Putnam (1967), which points out that while two people or even creatures of different species can have a common subjective experience, such as pain, it is unlikely that this always correlates to the exact same brain state - suggesting that something more must be at play. Token-identity theory however side steps this problem by stipulating that a single instance of a nerve firing correlates only with a single instance of experience as opposed to a more universal correlation.
Steven Sevush (2002) proposed another interesting recent theory that attempts to locate consciousness. Sevush argues that rather than being the result of a complex neural network, consciousness could actually exist within single neurons. He claims that what we consider to be our conscious experience is not the result of a single macroscopic mechanism (the brain) but rather of a ‘chorus’ of individually conscious neurons. His support for this comes from examples of single neurons dealing with enough dendritic information to account for the full range of conscious experience. Certainly single celled organisms demonstrate that life can exist within a single cell, so why not consciousness?
In these materialist descriptions consciousness is often viewed as simply an ‘emergent property’ of the brain, a view sometimes referred to as ‘emergent materialism’ (cited in Velmans, 2000). That is to say that consciousness is simply a bi-product of the physical processes of the brain, and so when the brain dies so too does consciousness. By this reasoning two identical brains would also result in two identical consciousnesses, almost reducing the process to that of a highly advanced computer.
One criticism of this theory however is that an ‘emergent’ consciousness cannot explain causality. That is, if consciousness simply arises from the workings of our brain it shouldn’t be able to affect its working; it would be akin to a television program affecting the circuitry of the TV (Goswami, 1995). If consciousness does not affect the brain however, then surely we are not truly in conscious control of our actions? Intuitively this seems unlikely and is another source of criticism for type-identity and token-identity explanations, yet it goes hand in hand with another school of thought known as ‘epiphenomalism’.
Epiphenomalism, a term originally coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (1874), claims our conscious control is actually just an ‘illusion’ and that we are not really in command of our actions at all rendering us as simple observers. This has been supported by studies such as those of Libet (1982), where participants were asked to randomly move their hands and then report at what time they made the decision to do so (a clock was in view). What was discovered was that the participants actually exhibited a ‘readiness potential’ (a pattern of activity within the brain that signals the intention to move) prior to the point when they reported making the decision consciously. While the study is interesting, there are several methodological problems, including the fact that it will have taken the participants a certain amount of time to read the time which could explain the ‘lag’.
Parallelism describes these effects differently, by saying that our consciousness and the physical world simply run in parallel with no causality at all between the two (cited in Carter, 2000). This is often explained as the work of God; that God made our consciousness awareness and our actions synchronised to give an impression of free will while allowing for a controlled destiny.
Many object to the idea of parallelism and epiphenomenalism on intuitive grounds. Additionally by rendering our consciousness impotent in this way, such theories call into question the purpose of having consciousness at all; for if we are not in control of our actions then what is the point of being aware? Certainly if we have no influence on our behaviour there doesn’t seem to be any survival value for it, which would make it unlikely that it would be a result of natural selection, or even included in the designs of a God. It also calls into question what it is exactly that Christians claim goes to heaven after we die; a spirit devoid of free will whose actions are dictated by God?
However when we consider the amount we can achieve without consciousness – driving a car, brushing our teeth, or even heading downstairs to make sandwiches in the case of some sleepwalkers – it makes one question even more the purpose of consciousness regardless of its role in directing behaviour.
Property dualism, a sub-branch of emergent materialism, describes the way in which consciousness can arise in a slightly different way by comparing it to phenomenon such as light (cited in Velmans, 2000). Light is notable for the fact that behaves both as a wave and a particle. Similarly heat is actually really just movement at an atomic level. Property dualism claims that similarly, when biological matter is arranged in a certain way, it becomes at once physical and conscious. It is possible then that consciousness is a force as yet not fully understood by physics with characteristics that could result in both the physical process of the brain and the mental phenomenon of consciousness.
Quantum mind theory takes this stance further by explaining consciousness as the result of as-yet not understood quantum mechanics. In Shadows of the Mind (Penrose, 1995) Penrose and his colleague Hameroff suggest that ‘microtubules’ present an environment where quantum mechanics could affect the brain at macroscopic levels. The relationship between consciousness and quantum physics is also demonstrated by the ‘wavefunction collapse’, where simply being aware of a sub-atomic particle has been shown to have an affect on their physical position (cited in Carter, 2002).
Critics of this theory however, point out that such an explanation does not solve anything, but rather simply speculates that two unexplained occurrences may be related. Philosopher David Chalmers (1995) described Quantum mind theory as an example of his ‘law of minimization of mystery’, that its supporters took the view that ‘consciousness is mysterious and quantum mechanics is mysterious, so maybe the two mysteries have a common source.’
Similar to property dualism is ‘dual aspect monism’, which describes all matter as being founded on some form of underlying ‘information’, much as the virtual environment of a computer game is founded at the most basic level on binary code. Here consciousness and physical reality are two aspects of the same substance. The ancient philosopher Plato was actually one of the first to make such a claim stating that underlying all of reality was ‘pure reason’.
Considering the implications of quantum physics then, it is not too great a leap to claim that this underlying ‘information’ might be consciousness itself which some recent theories now suggest (Goswami, 1993). Such a theory, ‘monistic idealism’, results in the rather large claim that the entire universe might be self-aware but could also offer support for the concept of consciousness in single neurons. However, this again falls prey to David Chalmers’ law of minimization of mystery, lumping together two unexplained phenomenon without shedding light on either.
For these reasons ‘new mysterians’ take the bleak view that consciousness is simply too complex a concept for the human mind to grasp, agreeing it seems with Ken Hill, famously quoted as saying that ‘if the brain were simple enough for us to understand it, we would be too simple to understand it.’
Whether consciousness will ever be fully understood is impossible to say. At this point there is still no agreement on whether consciousness is something distinct from the functioning of the brain or whether it is simply a byproduct that serves no real purpose. There are still a host of arguments for both monism and dualism as well as everything in between, with no end to the debate in sight. Currently it seems that an alteration is needed in the way consciousness is viewed, though perhaps compromises such as dual aspect monism or property dualism stand the best chance of providing a solution that might satisfy both camps; maybe it’s possible that consciousness can be at once distinct from our brain function and tied inextricably to its workings.
Well turning a negative into a positive I realised that the essay would possibly be of interest to readers of the the Biomatrix, particularly with its relevance to consciousness uploads. So read on and enjoy but don't expect to find any of the usual whimsy. Think that's heavy going? Try writing the bloody thing.
Is consciousness distinct from the biological function of the brain?
There are several theories on the nature of consciousness, most of which can be categorized as dualist or monist (cited in Velmans, 2000). Dualist theories of consciousness state that it is something separate from, or additional to, the basic workings of the brain and physical phenomena in general. Concepts such as a ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ are examples of dualistic beliefs. Meanwhile, monism states that there is only one type of substance, with materialists maintaining that this one substance is the physical world we see around us, and that consciousness is tied to the physical workings of the brain. By this reasoning consciousness is no different from any other physical phenomena. There is some evidence and many theories supporting both these camps and currently no widely accepted explanation for how consciousness arises or what exactly it is. This essay will examine arguments both for and against the idea of consciousness as distinct from the functioning of the brain.
The philosopher Rene Descartes (famous for the quote ‘Cogito, ergo sum – I think therefore I am’) was one of the first philosophers to analyse the nature of consciousness in a rational way (cited in Revonsonsuo & Kamppinen, 1994). Here he reasoned that consciousness was separate from the material world as firstly, unlike consciousness, other objects are unable to think or make decisions, and secondly, unlike other objects, it is not possible to describe the properties of consciousness/a thought – for example its location or size (you can’t for example say what colour your ideas are). This offered early support for dualism and gave rise to the school of thought known as ‘Cartesian dualism’ where the physical world is characterised by its extension in space, by which definition consciousness must be something else non-physical. Many religions consider this nonphysical substance to be a ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’.
The belief that humans have a spirit or soul is known as ‘substance dualism’, where consciousness is entirely separate from the body and so in theory could exist independently (cited in Velmans, 2000). This is the stance taken up by many religions such as Christianity where it is believed we have a separate soul that can survive even after the physical death of our bodies to live on in ‘hell’ or ‘heaven’. Incidences of out of body experiences (OBEs) and near death experiences (NDEs) have been taken as evidence supporting substance dualism. An OBE is characterised by a sensation in which an individual feels that they are somehow ‘floating’ out of their body. Sometimes they may claim to be able to see things from a different angle as a result, or even to be able to ‘travel’ in this spirit form while their bodies remain static.
Studies looking into the ability of patients to remotely view pieces of paper etc during out of body experiences have proven inconclusive however leading many such as Susan Blackmore (1998) to claim that nothing actually leaves the body during such experiences. Much like sleep paralysis or dreams, OBEs or NDEs could be caused by unusual activity in the brain. This is seemingly supported by studies that show that OBEs can be purposefully induced in patients (Blanke & Thut, 2007). In particular this has been achieved by magnetically stimulating the temporal lobes of the brain which are known to be related to visuo-spatial awareness, multi-sensory integration and self awareness.
On the other hand, reducing consciousness to the physical activity of the brain (materialism) is a form of ‘reductionism’; the act of reducing phenomenon to their most fundamental aspects. In the philosophy of mind this school of materialism is known as ‘type-identity theory’, where simply: brain state A results in conscious experience B. Here experiences are caused simply by the firing of neurons with specific neurons corresponding to specific sensations. This is seemingly supported by studies where patients’ exposed brains have been stimulated by electrodes resulting in their reporting a variety of subjective experiences including vivid flashbacks (Penfield & Perot, 1963). Further, studies using split brain patients (where the corpus callosum and other connective tissue between the brain’s hemispheres has been severed) has shown dissociation of awareness. For example when shown two words, one in each visual field, they are found to only be capable of reporting those in the right visual field – presumably as the left hemisphere is both responsible for the right visual field and, critically, speech (cited in Revonsonsuo & Kamppinen, 1994). This has been interpreted in a variety of ways; as there being two separate streams of consciousness – one for each hemisphere (Sperry, 1984), or as there being just one – that of the vocal left hemisphere (Gazzaniga et al, 1977). One philosopher, Puccetti (1988), went as far as to claim that we all constantly have two simultaneous consciousnesses but that it only becomes evident under such circumstances.
Regardless, these studies and others focusing on various other forms of brain damage, seem to support the idea that consciousness is inextricably tied to the functioning of the brain. If consciousness truly is simply a function of the brain, then it should be possible for neuroscientists to pinpoint its location and many have tried. Some psychologists have equated consciousness simply to language (Julian Jaynes, 1976), which would suggest that it is seated in the left-hemisphere where language is located (which interestingly concurs with Gazzaniga’s explanation of the split brain patients). Critics of this theory however point out that animals, and even some non-speaking humans (such as feral children or deaf/dumb patients) appear conscious without the need for language. While it is hard to imagine thought without language, it certainly need not be present for ‘choice’ to occur (the ‘intentionality’ aspect of consciousness (Brentano, 1995)) which seems to be a fundamental aspect of what we consider consciousness to be.
Much of our higher brain function, such as language and cognition, seems to be handled by our pre-frontal cortex with the more menial tasks such as breathing being left to our brain stems (cited in Pinel, 2006). It is certainly possible therefore to presume that consciousness might be generated within the frontal areas of the brain and many legion studies seem to support this idea. For example patients in persistent vegetative states exhibit less activity in the cortex, and furthermore this is often as a result of a severance between the cortex and brain stem.
This idea also seems to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, with more basic organisms having no or small underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes. However is this then to say that they are without consciousness? The danger here is that we mistake intelligence for consciousness. Another popular argument is that consciousness is actually the result of various brain areas functioning in unison and that it can not be isolated to one region (John, 2001).
One criticism for type-identity theory in general however is ‘multiple realisability’, put forward by Hilary Putnam (1967), which points out that while two people or even creatures of different species can have a common subjective experience, such as pain, it is unlikely that this always correlates to the exact same brain state - suggesting that something more must be at play. Token-identity theory however side steps this problem by stipulating that a single instance of a nerve firing correlates only with a single instance of experience as opposed to a more universal correlation.
Steven Sevush (2002) proposed another interesting recent theory that attempts to locate consciousness. Sevush argues that rather than being the result of a complex neural network, consciousness could actually exist within single neurons. He claims that what we consider to be our conscious experience is not the result of a single macroscopic mechanism (the brain) but rather of a ‘chorus’ of individually conscious neurons. His support for this comes from examples of single neurons dealing with enough dendritic information to account for the full range of conscious experience. Certainly single celled organisms demonstrate that life can exist within a single cell, so why not consciousness?
In these materialist descriptions consciousness is often viewed as simply an ‘emergent property’ of the brain, a view sometimes referred to as ‘emergent materialism’ (cited in Velmans, 2000). That is to say that consciousness is simply a bi-product of the physical processes of the brain, and so when the brain dies so too does consciousness. By this reasoning two identical brains would also result in two identical consciousnesses, almost reducing the process to that of a highly advanced computer.
One criticism of this theory however is that an ‘emergent’ consciousness cannot explain causality. That is, if consciousness simply arises from the workings of our brain it shouldn’t be able to affect its working; it would be akin to a television program affecting the circuitry of the TV (Goswami, 1995). If consciousness does not affect the brain however, then surely we are not truly in conscious control of our actions? Intuitively this seems unlikely and is another source of criticism for type-identity and token-identity explanations, yet it goes hand in hand with another school of thought known as ‘epiphenomalism’.
Epiphenomalism, a term originally coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (1874), claims our conscious control is actually just an ‘illusion’ and that we are not really in command of our actions at all rendering us as simple observers. This has been supported by studies such as those of Libet (1982), where participants were asked to randomly move their hands and then report at what time they made the decision to do so (a clock was in view). What was discovered was that the participants actually exhibited a ‘readiness potential’ (a pattern of activity within the brain that signals the intention to move) prior to the point when they reported making the decision consciously. While the study is interesting, there are several methodological problems, including the fact that it will have taken the participants a certain amount of time to read the time which could explain the ‘lag’.
Parallelism describes these effects differently, by saying that our consciousness and the physical world simply run in parallel with no causality at all between the two (cited in Carter, 2000). This is often explained as the work of God; that God made our consciousness awareness and our actions synchronised to give an impression of free will while allowing for a controlled destiny.
Many object to the idea of parallelism and epiphenomenalism on intuitive grounds. Additionally by rendering our consciousness impotent in this way, such theories call into question the purpose of having consciousness at all; for if we are not in control of our actions then what is the point of being aware? Certainly if we have no influence on our behaviour there doesn’t seem to be any survival value for it, which would make it unlikely that it would be a result of natural selection, or even included in the designs of a God. It also calls into question what it is exactly that Christians claim goes to heaven after we die; a spirit devoid of free will whose actions are dictated by God?
However when we consider the amount we can achieve without consciousness – driving a car, brushing our teeth, or even heading downstairs to make sandwiches in the case of some sleepwalkers – it makes one question even more the purpose of consciousness regardless of its role in directing behaviour.
Property dualism, a sub-branch of emergent materialism, describes the way in which consciousness can arise in a slightly different way by comparing it to phenomenon such as light (cited in Velmans, 2000). Light is notable for the fact that behaves both as a wave and a particle. Similarly heat is actually really just movement at an atomic level. Property dualism claims that similarly, when biological matter is arranged in a certain way, it becomes at once physical and conscious. It is possible then that consciousness is a force as yet not fully understood by physics with characteristics that could result in both the physical process of the brain and the mental phenomenon of consciousness.
Quantum mind theory takes this stance further by explaining consciousness as the result of as-yet not understood quantum mechanics. In Shadows of the Mind (Penrose, 1995) Penrose and his colleague Hameroff suggest that ‘microtubules’ present an environment where quantum mechanics could affect the brain at macroscopic levels. The relationship between consciousness and quantum physics is also demonstrated by the ‘wavefunction collapse’, where simply being aware of a sub-atomic particle has been shown to have an affect on their physical position (cited in Carter, 2002).
Critics of this theory however, point out that such an explanation does not solve anything, but rather simply speculates that two unexplained occurrences may be related. Philosopher David Chalmers (1995) described Quantum mind theory as an example of his ‘law of minimization of mystery’, that its supporters took the view that ‘consciousness is mysterious and quantum mechanics is mysterious, so maybe the two mysteries have a common source.’
Similar to property dualism is ‘dual aspect monism’, which describes all matter as being founded on some form of underlying ‘information’, much as the virtual environment of a computer game is founded at the most basic level on binary code. Here consciousness and physical reality are two aspects of the same substance. The ancient philosopher Plato was actually one of the first to make such a claim stating that underlying all of reality was ‘pure reason’.
Considering the implications of quantum physics then, it is not too great a leap to claim that this underlying ‘information’ might be consciousness itself which some recent theories now suggest (Goswami, 1993). Such a theory, ‘monistic idealism’, results in the rather large claim that the entire universe might be self-aware but could also offer support for the concept of consciousness in single neurons. However, this again falls prey to David Chalmers’ law of minimization of mystery, lumping together two unexplained phenomenon without shedding light on either.
For these reasons ‘new mysterians’ take the bleak view that consciousness is simply too complex a concept for the human mind to grasp, agreeing it seems with Ken Hill, famously quoted as saying that ‘if the brain were simple enough for us to understand it, we would be too simple to understand it.’
Whether consciousness will ever be fully understood is impossible to say. At this point there is still no agreement on whether consciousness is something distinct from the functioning of the brain or whether it is simply a byproduct that serves no real purpose. There are still a host of arguments for both monism and dualism as well as everything in between, with no end to the debate in sight. Currently it seems that an alteration is needed in the way consciousness is viewed, though perhaps compromises such as dual aspect monism or property dualism stand the best chance of providing a solution that might satisfy both camps; maybe it’s possible that consciousness can be at once distinct from our brain function and tied inextricably to its workings.
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Why you should be patient and why you should NOT electricute your head...
The Bio-Blog has been a bit quiet just recently, as has the Biomatrix to be honest. You're probably wondering why this is. Actually you probably aren't, but you're sure as hell going to find out! If you continue reading that is...Basically I'm working on my dissertation which is eating up most of my time (my personal life has recently seen an awesome development (for once) which is eating up the rest or leaving me yearning and moping around). I've undergone a paradigm shift of late, one so great that I just got Secret Invasion in the post and haven't even read it yet. We live in interesting times...
But stay tuned because as soon as that dissertation is in (Friday 15th at the latest) I will return with a summary or perhaps even the whole thing for you to peruse. Ground breaking research in the field of transhumanism especially for you (and my course)! On top of that I'll be uploading a new galery of bodybuilding with an artistic flaire compliments of my Stinky sister. Trust man, it's going to be cool (just check out the new Biomatrix banner for a taster). This should also make me lots of money by drawing bodybuilders to the site once more.
In the interim I present to you the findings of an interesting Biolab experiment I did a few years back but forgot to report at the time:
While it is true that electrical stimulation of certain areas of the brain can result in strange phenomenon (including vivid flashbacks and seisures) this does NOT mean that you should try and use the conductive pads from your muscle stimulator on your head. Yes it seems like a good idea when you're drunk, but it will only result in you feeling weird and sore for several days. Trust me on this one.
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Categories of Transhuman technologies.
While studying public reactions to Transhumanism for my dissertation I discovered that people viewed the permissability of different elements of Transhumanism very differently. This is when the problems with defining Transhumanism become clear. Is Transhumanism any technology or technique used to design oneself? Is it already among us? Is plastic surgery an example of Transhumanism? Is caffeine? Is training? Is this too many questions? Has it got to the point where it's ridiculous? Has it? Have I? Have you???
In order to help somewhat I propose the following categories for describing various transhuman techniques in terms of the actual procedure and physical cange involved. I have also arranged them roughly in terms of current perceived acceptibility (or my perception of the perception...or something). Please quote me if you wish to use the terms in your own articles:
Repairing - Potentially Transhuman technologies used in a non-transhuman way.
Advanced training/Lifestyle adjusting - Extreme training techniques that go outside the realms of casual fitness such as becoming ambidextrous, calorie restriction, weight lifting or omni training.
Augmenting - A removable attachment that enhances capabilities, such as a hypothetical 'Iron Man' armour or to a lesser extent speedsoles or even a watch.
Boosting - A temporary measure such as caffeine, steroids or non-insertional gene doping.
Embelishing - a permanent or semi-permanent external change that serves no real purpose such as a piercing or tattoo.
Restructuring - rearranging external or internal elements of a human, for example plastic surgery.
Replacing - permanently replacing an organ or limb with something such as bionic legs. Often here the Transhuman aspect might be more of a side affect than the intended purpose of the procedure (intended as a Repairing procedure but resulting in enhancement).
Adding - permanently integrating something additional into the human form such as a brain chip.
Altering - where the actual biological structure of the human is changed, such as when modifying DNA.
Redefining - a change so great that the person is unrecognisable as human, such as a consciousness upload.
In order to help somewhat I propose the following categories for describing various transhuman techniques in terms of the actual procedure and physical cange involved. I have also arranged them roughly in terms of current perceived acceptibility (or my perception of the perception...or something). Please quote me if you wish to use the terms in your own articles:
Repairing - Potentially Transhuman technologies used in a non-transhuman way.
Advanced training/Lifestyle adjusting - Extreme training techniques that go outside the realms of casual fitness such as becoming ambidextrous, calorie restriction, weight lifting or omni training.
Augmenting - A removable attachment that enhances capabilities, such as a hypothetical 'Iron Man' armour or to a lesser extent speedsoles or even a watch.
Boosting - A temporary measure such as caffeine, steroids or non-insertional gene doping.
Embelishing - a permanent or semi-permanent external change that serves no real purpose such as a piercing or tattoo.
Restructuring - rearranging external or internal elements of a human, for example plastic surgery.
Replacing - permanently replacing an organ or limb with something such as bionic legs. Often here the Transhuman aspect might be more of a side affect than the intended purpose of the procedure (intended as a Repairing procedure but resulting in enhancement).
Adding - permanently integrating something additional into the human form such as a brain chip.
Altering - where the actual biological structure of the human is changed, such as when modifying DNA.
Redefining - a change so great that the person is unrecognisable as human, such as a consciousness upload.
Saturday, 13 December 2008
Transhumanism Focus Group Take 1
As some of you may know, for my dissertation I'm doing the 'public perception of Transhumanism' (read as 'Adam's mates talk about Superheroes' - how did I pull that one off???). There are lots of journal articles available on the web that discuss the permissability of Transhuman technologies from a scientific perspective (download a whole zip file of them here: www.the-biomatrix.net/Transhumanism.zip), but there has thus far been nothing on what the general public make of these ideas which is a problem as it is the general public who will get the final say on whether or not they become mainstream. That's where my study and I step in. Interesting stuff.To achieve this I am using focus groups - semi-structured conversations between 5-8 people - and the first took place last Tuesday. I was pretty nervous about this at first as I'd never done anything like this before. I actually used to be the go-to guy for speeches and presentations at my old sixth form but that all ended in flames when I gave the gaduation speech on 2 hours sleep. Turned out I had my qeue cards in the wrong order. Obvious thing to do in that situation? Read them in the random order I found them in. Could have gone better...
Anyway I woke up at 7am to prepare my handouts and was shitting myself. I decided to OD on caffeine tablets too which may not have been the best idea. Although with my i-Phone, caffeine tablets and springboost shoes and springback speedsoles I was something of a testament to human enhancement myself.
Printing out the handouts in the libray I started dancing to my music though which greatly improved my mood. When I then arrived in 16AD04 and saw the set up with the cameras, recording devices and one-way glass I suddenly went on a power trip that dispersed the last of my nerves. I realised that all this was was a conversation with my mates, except better because everyone had to talk about what I told them to.
So how did it go? Actually it went pretty fantastically and ran over to be twice as long as anticipated (and as I'd promised my participants... :-S). I have literally tonns of data to work with (and to transcribe... joy).
One thing that was clear from the start was that generally no one has heard of Transhumanism. For such a potentially transformative subject (no pun intended), it's suprising how little is known. When asked to speculate as to what Transhumansim was, most people were along the right track (except those who thought it was somehow related to cross-dressing or sex changes... come on guys, why would I be doing my dissertation on that??), and parralells were drawn to science fiction. So far, the general concensus seems to be that Transhumanism isn't cool. As a transhumanist, this is kind of upsetting. Especially as the study might be being published. Am I going to inadvertantly be the guy who puts an end to a movement I've followed with great interest? Am I going to be the guy who pisses all over the great bonfire of Transhumanism?
The objections were varied. One of the issues that was raised was the idea that enhancement technologies ('surplus' advancements as one participant described them), would lead to a greater class divide as only the rich and wealthy gain access to the ability to be faster and smarter. I however pointed out that this was already the case in many ways as the rich afford better cars, computers, clothes, medicine and food. I put it to the group that really Transhumanism was no different. The counter argument for this, which was interesting, was that Transhumanism could be used as a weapon - and that was how it was different. This was a theme that actually came up regularly, along with a general mis-trust of the government and any other powers that might be put in place to regulate the technology. Could this be inspired by science fiction stories of dystopian futures brought about by genetic technology?
Afraid I was becoming the boy who killed Transhumanism, we moved onto the vignettes. Here the group were presented with little hypothetical scenarios in which an individual might turn to Transhuman technologies. Here it was still mostly considered wrong, with participants claiming that it took the struggle out of life and potentially the competition out of sport. If everyone made themselves perfect it was speculated that it could even elliminate individuality. This actually made me think, and I'd read a similar article in a journal. My response was jotted down on my iPhone:
Transhumanism - more instant gratification, no challenge or variation?No, this is when humanity turns to art & other challenges/forms of expression. And supreme individuality will arise from transhumanism for those who want it. Many people are gaining weight thanks partly to computers, but those like myself who value physicslity can still use a gym to attain higher levels of fitness. For the first time our outward image & our physical body will represent exactly what is inside. Like an online avatar. For the first time we will truly be able to excell in any field. For are not our individual weaknesses essentially disabilities? When is abnormal shortness shocking enough that it warrants treatment? Only the individual, with his own dreams, aims & experiences can make this decision.
More evidence that I am completely insane? Yes. I'm not even sure if those are my views, but they certainy offer an interesting counter argument (if I do say so myself). But still there is no doubting that it's an interesting topic and I'm excited to hear the issues raised in future groups. The next one is on Monday and I currently have two participants... shit.
Want to see just how much damage I do to the field? Stay tuned!
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Immortality and the economic crisis
This just in: The economic crisis sucks!Sure I heard people complaining about it and saying how bad it was for people in finance and banking and the like, but I was pretty sure it wasn't actually going to affect me. I thought it was just another one of those doom and gloom stories like the 'Bird Flu' scare where the media make out the world is ending and we're heading for a post-apocolyptic Terminator style future... but then it turns out to be dissapointingly boring and there are no explosions and I have to carry on doing my work as opposed to wearing a vest and throwing grenades.
I mean everyone would be losing money at the same rate right? Sure you'll get poor but then so will everyone else... Sure the value of your house will drop but then if you buy any others they'll be cheaper too... And then when the economy rights itself again (hopefully thanks to Super-Obama!) everyone will be back to square one. The media weren't helping by scare mongering as that was what was causing the problem in the first place. If only I'd written this article sooner we could have avoided this whole sordid affair... I'm the boy who could have saved the world...
People, here me: there will almost certainly be no explosions and definitely no killer robots. Boring I know. Calm down and buy stuff (preferably my e-book...)
But then the severity of the issue hit home - one of the advertisers on the Biomatrix.net went bankrput and so (understandably) stopped advertising on the site... Shitty Man Nipples...
That's 10 pounds a month I'm losing! That ten pounds was a night out for me here in Surrey, and with Tuna Paste prices soaring I can barely afford to eat. The other day I had to buy Tesco value mayonaise!! It tasted like rabbit sperm!!
Maybe I was hasty in my nonchalance... Maybe the end is infact nigh... Maybe the T-100s are coming... My laptop has actually already started rebelling.
So I am making preparations for the apocalypse. Being the forward thinking transhumanist editor of the Biomatrix.net I of course have a solution... I am creating a free talking avatar!
Bet you didn't see that coming. You see according to Martine Rothblatt, this is the first baby-step toward uploading a consciousness (the eventual goal of many transhumaists).
It's kind of like facebook but with a 3D image of yourself that learns to behave like you do. This actually works better than I expected and your avatar includes a photo of your face and you can talk to the AI (it speaks out loud). It gets some of its information from personality tests you do etc. I wouldn't say mine is indistinguishable from me but it's certainly worth checking out...
Then at the same time you can document your life experiences for all to see... a kind of personal time capsule.
So when the inevitable economic end results in the break down of society, and you die of the resultant bird flu and robot invasion, at least you will live on in a way online. Imortalised in cyberspace. Sure, it's not quite as good as not dying... or even actual mind uploading... but then again it is charming in its own way.
Read a fuller article here: http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/custom/today/bal-to.rothblatt18nov18,0,1422693.story
Or check out the actual thing here: http://www.lifenaut.com/
Well that was a bit of a ramble... I'm in a pretty dark mood today... At least it was kind of topical.
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
Six rounds with Rocky Balboa
There's already a Rocky Balboa review on the Biomatrix and I think it's pretty obvious from the content of the rest of the site that generally all things Rocky are to be worshipped. There wasn't much more to say on the matter until recently Nathan and I embarked on a daring project that would help us to see the Rocky films in a whole new way - by watching them back to back in just one day. It was a mammoth undertaking, a fool's errand, but there was no way around it - it had to be done... because otherwise... hmm... it just had to okay? For the motivation the series has offered to bodybuilding, athletes, boxers and others alike I felt it deserved to be watched in its entirety.
Putting in the first disk we were full of energy and raring to go. I had some Newcastle Brown and was looking forward to seeing a film I hadn't seen for quite a while. In my buzzing mood and with gaps in my memory this first installment went down a treat, even more so than on previous occasions. This film more than any other really shows how truly under-appreciated Stallone really is. The script is witty, entertaining, filled with likeable and relatable characters and a decent plot while Stallone's acting is on par with greats like Marlon Brando (not my words). You really feel for Rocky, both in his love life, his training and in the ring (I love it when he describes Adrian as 'filling gaps' (not a euphamism by the way)). Anyone with any kind of humanity will route for him so much it'll be hard not to jump out of the seat during the training montage and fight scene. Then there's the music... so far so good. During a brief interlude I got myself another Newcy Brown and we moved on.
It was a bit strange watching the end of the first film again immediately after seeing it the first time, but this was something we came to quite like as it showed the continuation and really nailed the home that this was a series we were watching.
The second film however I found harder to swallow. I didn't realise how similar it was to the first film, but with none of the direction or the freshness. It also seemed somehow over-long. I did cheer up towards the end when the new and improved training montage kicked in (I love the unique training methods - inspiring stuff) but even the fight was a bit lame, particularly with the bizzarre ending.
On its own 2 is an okay film that just doesn't live up to its predecessor, immediately following 1 however it almost had me down for the count.
Fortunately three offer a change of pace and as soon as 'Eye of the Tiger' kicked in I was back in the game and Nathan showed similar rejuvination. That tune never fails to get me psyched and this was no exception. The incredible definition Stallone achieved at 3% bodyfat also woke me up - inspiring stuff.
There was none of the drama or emotional stuff seen in 1 & 2 but to be honest I'd had enough of that. 3 is pure comic-book style over-the-top 80s action. Class. Throw Mr T and Hulk Hogan in there too and you've got a winning formula.
Actually there is one emotional bit - the death of Mickey. A touching scene for me that's accentuated by a touching score from the ever present (except in four) conti. When Rocky cries it sends shivers down my spine. It's even more heart wrenching after just seeing these two form a bond for five hours. Unfortunately Nathan kind of mocked the performance which sort of ruined it for me this time round but hey... I'm not bitter... not bitter enough to remember it and write about it two weeks later or anything...
Pumped and reinvigorated we swapped the beers for protein shake and whacked in the next disk.
During four I had again reached saturation point. The weird thing is that four is normally my favourite but I suppose that was the problem - I've seen it over 50 times and at 6 hours in I didn't feel the desire to see it again. In reality this installment is really just one long music montage, which is great to whack on during a workout (my normal use for the film) but not so great to concentrate on if you're completely brain dead. While the Slyman was fighting the cold war I was fighting to keep my eyes open - and losing. I'd been hitten hard and protein shake, nor beer, nor even tea would do it... I'd need a strong coffee if I was going to keep moving forward.
I don't know if it was the caffeine boost or something else (perhaps the fact that I hadn't watched this one for over a year) but by five I suddenly found myself more awake than ever before. I can't really comment on Nathan's state of mind, but if I had to I'd put it at zen-like concentration.
Five has always gotten a bad rap which I think is unfair. Sure it's a bit soapy and it's kind of contrived that he should lose all his money and end up back in his old house from the second film, but the point is that just like Rocky himself the film is going back to its routes. And while three and four were fun I think five is actually better for it.
It's also at this point that we were beginning to notice how impressive it is that we've followed this character through so many life changing events - his first win, his marriage, the birth of his child, the growth of his child... it's almost like you know the character and again this just helps you route for him more. Especially during the street fight where the steaks are raised and the bad guy is even more of a dickhead than usual.
The little nods to the old films start to appear here too - such as the priest from the first film, and even a return to the boxing arena that we saw in the first scene of Rocky 1 (something I'd never noticed before). All this really helps to keep the illusion of a believeable world and made our (thus far) 8 hour vigil seem (slightly) more worthwhile.
Sure there are flaws in the continuity - I mean Rocky's son seems to age like ten years while he's in Russia. And it's funny how his bad eye is only an issue in the second film... but these plotholes are actually pretty few when you consider the scope of the series.
Another nice thing to see is the return of Mickey. I seem to remember that I worked out the flashbacks must have been filmed specifically for this film (not collected from discarded footage). I can't remember how I worked this out so you'll just have to take my word for it.
I also didn't pick up on all the father-issue stuff that's in the film previously. See, even after the twentieth watch you can still spot new things in a Rocky film. 'Get up ya' bum - Mickey loves ya!'.
It was Rocky Balboa that I had been looking forward to the most perhaps. After four it's my favourite Rocky, but it's also more modern and more serious.
One thing I didn't like was the lack of the serial style 'recap intro' that graced the beginning of the previous films. Nathan protested that showing the end of five would completely not make sense in the context of the film - but I felt a little summary of the previous five would have been nice for old time's sake. I suppose that's why this is 'Rocky Balboa' and not Rocky 6.
Rocky himself has changed slightly in this installment too as suddenly he seems wiser than before - passing his knowledge on to his son, a girl from his block, a random kid called 'Steps' and anyone else who'll listen. While the change is noticeable however it isn't out of place - as it stands to reason that the extra years and a life of action would leave him with a different perspective.
And that said though, it's still impressive how true to form the film is and this time there are even more retro nods - such as the re-appearance of Spider (the same actor and all) and even the very same turtles from from Rocky 1. It's impressive too that Appollo's trainer manages to grace every episode. The fact that Stallone could get so many actors and places involved and committed throughout the series is a testiment to the quality of the films and again really makes you believe that you've watched someone's whole life. At the beginning of the series who'd have thought that Appollo's trainer would be training Rocky to fight in his 60s? I doubt even Sly would predict it but in the context of the series it all makes sense - even in the cartoony middle films the overall plot follows a natural and organic evolution that can only occur when you have such well developed characters. Even Rocky's body has changed and adapted over time.
Six also demonstrates more than any other film how the films have mirrored Stallone's own life - how he went from nothing to overnight success, how he lost his way for a while, and how he returns after a long hiatus to successfully reclaim his glory days. And always against insurmountable odds.
Having seen the whole series through and now being introduced to Rocky at his lowest ebb, you want him to bounce back more than ever. And when you see him training at that age (to get those abs) you realise that no challenge is too great to Rocky or Stallone. It fills you with determination and pride.
At the end I was sad to see Rocky go, and sad that Stallone swore never to do a number seven. Then again he also swore never to do a five, or a four, so perhaps there's hope. The way I see it 'Rocky' is no ordinary series of films - it can break outside of the accepted trillogy format just like Bond. And though it pains me to say it I think there's one chapter left in Rocky's life. I think we need to see him die.
Whether or not this comes to pass however the experience has left me with a confirmed love for the series and the great man himself as well as a rejuvinated enthusiasm for the gym and the great gym of life. I think it's fair to say that Nathan felt the same. Not any film can do that to a guy - Rocky is my bible.
'In the warrior's code there's no surrender - though his body says stop his spirit cries 'never!''
I could have been doing work...
Putting in the first disk we were full of energy and raring to go. I had some Newcastle Brown and was looking forward to seeing a film I hadn't seen for quite a while. In my buzzing mood and with gaps in my memory this first installment went down a treat, even more so than on previous occasions. This film more than any other really shows how truly under-appreciated Stallone really is. The script is witty, entertaining, filled with likeable and relatable characters and a decent plot while Stallone's acting is on par with greats like Marlon Brando (not my words). You really feel for Rocky, both in his love life, his training and in the ring (I love it when he describes Adrian as 'filling gaps' (not a euphamism by the way)). Anyone with any kind of humanity will route for him so much it'll be hard not to jump out of the seat during the training montage and fight scene. Then there's the music... so far so good. During a brief interlude I got myself another Newcy Brown and we moved on.
It was a bit strange watching the end of the first film again immediately after seeing it the first time, but this was something we came to quite like as it showed the continuation and really nailed the home that this was a series we were watching.
The second film however I found harder to swallow. I didn't realise how similar it was to the first film, but with none of the direction or the freshness. It also seemed somehow over-long. I did cheer up towards the end when the new and improved training montage kicked in (I love the unique training methods - inspiring stuff) but even the fight was a bit lame, particularly with the bizzarre ending.
On its own 2 is an okay film that just doesn't live up to its predecessor, immediately following 1 however it almost had me down for the count.
Fortunately three offer a change of pace and as soon as 'Eye of the Tiger' kicked in I was back in the game and Nathan showed similar rejuvination. That tune never fails to get me psyched and this was no exception. The incredible definition Stallone achieved at 3% bodyfat also woke me up - inspiring stuff.
There was none of the drama or emotional stuff seen in 1 & 2 but to be honest I'd had enough of that. 3 is pure comic-book style over-the-top 80s action. Class. Throw Mr T and Hulk Hogan in there too and you've got a winning formula.
Actually there is one emotional bit - the death of Mickey. A touching scene for me that's accentuated by a touching score from the ever present (except in four) conti. When Rocky cries it sends shivers down my spine. It's even more heart wrenching after just seeing these two form a bond for five hours. Unfortunately Nathan kind of mocked the performance which sort of ruined it for me this time round but hey... I'm not bitter... not bitter enough to remember it and write about it two weeks later or anything...
Pumped and reinvigorated we swapped the beers for protein shake and whacked in the next disk.
During four I had again reached saturation point. The weird thing is that four is normally my favourite but I suppose that was the problem - I've seen it over 50 times and at 6 hours in I didn't feel the desire to see it again. In reality this installment is really just one long music montage, which is great to whack on during a workout (my normal use for the film) but not so great to concentrate on if you're completely brain dead. While the Slyman was fighting the cold war I was fighting to keep my eyes open - and losing. I'd been hitten hard and protein shake, nor beer, nor even tea would do it... I'd need a strong coffee if I was going to keep moving forward.
I don't know if it was the caffeine boost or something else (perhaps the fact that I hadn't watched this one for over a year) but by five I suddenly found myself more awake than ever before. I can't really comment on Nathan's state of mind, but if I had to I'd put it at zen-like concentration.
Five has always gotten a bad rap which I think is unfair. Sure it's a bit soapy and it's kind of contrived that he should lose all his money and end up back in his old house from the second film, but the point is that just like Rocky himself the film is going back to its routes. And while three and four were fun I think five is actually better for it.
It's also at this point that we were beginning to notice how impressive it is that we've followed this character through so many life changing events - his first win, his marriage, the birth of his child, the growth of his child... it's almost like you know the character and again this just helps you route for him more. Especially during the street fight where the steaks are raised and the bad guy is even more of a dickhead than usual.
The little nods to the old films start to appear here too - such as the priest from the first film, and even a return to the boxing arena that we saw in the first scene of Rocky 1 (something I'd never noticed before). All this really helps to keep the illusion of a believeable world and made our (thus far) 8 hour vigil seem (slightly) more worthwhile.
Sure there are flaws in the continuity - I mean Rocky's son seems to age like ten years while he's in Russia. And it's funny how his bad eye is only an issue in the second film... but these plotholes are actually pretty few when you consider the scope of the series.
Another nice thing to see is the return of Mickey. I seem to remember that I worked out the flashbacks must have been filmed specifically for this film (not collected from discarded footage). I can't remember how I worked this out so you'll just have to take my word for it.
I also didn't pick up on all the father-issue stuff that's in the film previously. See, even after the twentieth watch you can still spot new things in a Rocky film. 'Get up ya' bum - Mickey loves ya!'.
It was Rocky Balboa that I had been looking forward to the most perhaps. After four it's my favourite Rocky, but it's also more modern and more serious.
One thing I didn't like was the lack of the serial style 'recap intro' that graced the beginning of the previous films. Nathan protested that showing the end of five would completely not make sense in the context of the film - but I felt a little summary of the previous five would have been nice for old time's sake. I suppose that's why this is 'Rocky Balboa' and not Rocky 6.
Rocky himself has changed slightly in this installment too as suddenly he seems wiser than before - passing his knowledge on to his son, a girl from his block, a random kid called 'Steps' and anyone else who'll listen. While the change is noticeable however it isn't out of place - as it stands to reason that the extra years and a life of action would leave him with a different perspective.
And that said though, it's still impressive how true to form the film is and this time there are even more retro nods - such as the re-appearance of Spider (the same actor and all) and even the very same turtles from from Rocky 1. It's impressive too that Appollo's trainer manages to grace every episode. The fact that Stallone could get so many actors and places involved and committed throughout the series is a testiment to the quality of the films and again really makes you believe that you've watched someone's whole life. At the beginning of the series who'd have thought that Appollo's trainer would be training Rocky to fight in his 60s? I doubt even Sly would predict it but in the context of the series it all makes sense - even in the cartoony middle films the overall plot follows a natural and organic evolution that can only occur when you have such well developed characters. Even Rocky's body has changed and adapted over time.
Six also demonstrates more than any other film how the films have mirrored Stallone's own life - how he went from nothing to overnight success, how he lost his way for a while, and how he returns after a long hiatus to successfully reclaim his glory days. And always against insurmountable odds.
Having seen the whole series through and now being introduced to Rocky at his lowest ebb, you want him to bounce back more than ever. And when you see him training at that age (to get those abs) you realise that no challenge is too great to Rocky or Stallone. It fills you with determination and pride.
At the end I was sad to see Rocky go, and sad that Stallone swore never to do a number seven. Then again he also swore never to do a five, or a four, so perhaps there's hope. The way I see it 'Rocky' is no ordinary series of films - it can break outside of the accepted trillogy format just like Bond. And though it pains me to say it I think there's one chapter left in Rocky's life. I think we need to see him die.
Whether or not this comes to pass however the experience has left me with a confirmed love for the series and the great man himself as well as a rejuvinated enthusiasm for the gym and the great gym of life. I think it's fair to say that Nathan felt the same. Not any film can do that to a guy - Rocky is my bible.
'In the warrior's code there's no surrender - though his body says stop his spirit cries 'never!''
I could have been doing work...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
