• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Immortality only 20 years away


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#61 Berserker

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 October 2009 - 10:25 AM

Anyway, what do you mean by intelligent? For example, today we have computers able to desing many thing, but they are not"inteligent". With the IA i suposse is going to be the same. We dont need an IA with consciousness , we just need super computers able to desing much better things that we have now. Which this can of computers we will progress much faster.

#62 Ben Simon

  • Guest
  • 352 posts
  • 3
  • Location:London

Posted 15 October 2009 - 11:53 AM

Yeah, it's a mistake to conflate consciousness with intelligence. A computer could be super intelligent and super beneficial to humanity without need of any 'ghost in the machine'.

#63 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 October 2009 - 12:00 PM

The philosophy of consciousness shows us that the main problem is materialism - a false metaphysics. It means that reality in its original form is not like our perception of it.

You cannot find consciousness in any form in any sense data. Not in the brain, not in anywhere.

The only logical explanation is that our perceptions of reality are really distorted and partial. I think quantum mechanics was the first clue that materialism is a false paradigm.

I think we simply cannot understand consciousness at the present time because our minds cannot even grasp the real form of existence.

Our spatial-temporal model of reality inside our consciousness is basically erroneous and probably too crude to successfully model every existing phenomenon.

What I mean is that we have no clue what consciousness is. This makes the task of creating artificial consciousness a little bit challenging.

But I'm not saying that this is impossible.

I think we will be able to create conscious machines using biological components within 30 years. Which is basically steeling the plans from mother nature.

But even then we won't understand consciousness.


I think the problem is that people believe there is consciousness.

In my opinion, there isn't, we are just computers with different multiple structures that has softwares to handle things like vision, memory, movement.
Animals are a good example, they behave in consistent with their base algorithm (instincts) and that's it.
We are a bit further ahead, our software includes better tools for communication (mouth, hands) and software to use it and remember, as well as plan forward.

The only thing I might find curious in "consciousness" is the plan/think forward part, but I think that evolved with communication and satisfaction of our base instincts, giving us more time to glitch.
That or the software/algorithm evolved a bit.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#64 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 October 2009 - 12:05 PM

Yeah, it's a mistake to conflate consciousness with intelligence. A computer could be super intelligent and super beneficial to humanity without need of any 'ghost in the machine'.


The computer might have fast hardware, huge data base and algorithms to do things, but it will not be intelligent without some sort of consciousness.

Even if it won't have full consciousness, but a really good algorithm to understand things it should do better, then it will be intelligent.

Consciousness like I said earlier, is just a combination of algorithms and tools giving you a set of abilities, like visual and sound interaction with the world, memory and base instincts.
Emotions are the main thing that might separate humans from machines one day but emotions is also an algorithm and sensors which can be programmed and will be added to machines if someone decides to do so.

#65 CerebralCortex

  • Guest
  • 123 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Limerick, Ireland

Posted 15 October 2009 - 12:34 PM

I think the problem is that people believe there is consciousness.

In my opinion, there isn't, we are just computers with different multiple structures that has softwares to handle things like vision, memory, movement.
Animals are a good example, they behave in consistent with their base algorithm (instincts) and that's it.
We are a bit further ahead, our software includes better tools for communication (mouth, hands) and software to use it and remember, as well as plan forward.

The only thing I might find curious in "consciousness" is the plan/think forward part, but I think that evolved with communication and satisfaction of our base instincts, giving us more time to glitch.
That or the software/algorithm evolved a bit.


I couldn't agree more as Daniel Dennett says "The soul exists but its mechanical."

#66 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,357 posts
  • 68

Posted 15 October 2009 - 01:20 PM

Well my problem with Moore's law argument is that my old Commodore 64 computer 25 years ago had the same type of AI than my multi-core PC has now.

To be honest, PCs and softwares are algorithmic logical tools and not AIs in my opinion.

I don't find my PC more intelligent now than my C-64 was 25 years ago.

It is much quicker and can store much more data, but is it really intelligent?



Not yet!! But that's not the point. The point is that we need a very powerful computer in order to create intelligence. Trust me, we won't be able to simulate a human brain in your C-64.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#67 alexd

  • Guest
  • 106 posts
  • 7

Posted 15 October 2009 - 02:07 PM

I would like ton point out that people at at a given historical period tend to describe human systems in terms of the current technology they are aware of. Hence a Victorian might describe things in terms of steam power, a 1950's American in terms of gasoline powered machines and effects. My generation (I am 56) in terms of computers, and the following generation in terms of programming. I expect that the tendency of people to describe function here as computer/math algorithms in the same manner. So I am suggesting that those metaphors we are currently using will be superseded by new ones as our perception of technologies change. Our perceptions are constrained by the format of our thinking.

I suspect that nano-tech might be the next metaphorical phase (but of course I too work under the same limitations, so my speculation is hampered by my reality.)

So it is not just what we talk and think about, but how, that constrains our speculations..

So now lets go and think about our self imposed conceptual limitations and roadblocks. Find your blindspot and change your world.

Nice discussion!

Edited by alexd, 15 October 2009 - 02:10 PM.


#68 Custodiam

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 18 October 2009 - 06:28 AM

Quoting from the above replies:

Which this can of computers we will progress much faster.

Yeah, it's a mistake to conflate consciousness with intelligence.


Let me quote from Rudy Rucker's book, Infinity and the mind, page 162.:

The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

1. Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
2. Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
3. Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
4. Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
5. If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
6. We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
7. "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."

Think about it - it grows on you ...

***

You can understand something which an algorithmic AI will never understand.

So intelligence without consciousness is limited and will never be equal of conscious intelligence.

I think the problem is that people believe there is consciousness.

I couldn't agree more as Daniel Dennett says "The soul exists but its mechanical."


If there is no consciousness then a stone exists the same way than you exist.

So it is the same experience "to be a stone" than "to be a human being"?

What does it mean "to be a stone"? Is it a meaningful question?

I don't think so.

But the question "what is it like to be a human" is meaningful!

I recommend you to read Thomas Nagel's "What Is it Like to Be a Bat?", Philosophical Review, pp. 435-50.

http://organizations...5/nagel_bat.pdf

Consciousness has a name now, it is called "qualia".

A stone has no qualia, but you have qualia.

So there is consciousness and the materialist and neo-positivist philosophy of the XX. century is simply a false paradigm.

Edited by Custodiam, 18 October 2009 - 06:32 AM.


#69 ben951

  • Guest
  • 111 posts
  • 15
  • Location:France

Posted 18 October 2009 - 09:02 AM

What about a dog does it have consciousness ? A Bonobo ? a fly ? a bacteria ? a pre-human ?

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#70 Custodiam

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 18 October 2009 - 09:19 AM

What about a dog does it have consciousness ? A Bonobo ? a fly ? a bacteria ? a pre-human ?


In my opinion consciousness is a special state of existence (or matter-energy). It is fundamentally different from non-conscious states of matter-energy, so it questions the real properties of matter-energy, but not the objective existence of it (I mean the outside world exists, but the question is in what form in itself?).

I think that among animals only apes have consciousness because they can understand the concept of mirror-image (they can identify themselves in a mirror).

But I'm absolutely sure that consciousness is not algorithmic. Consciousness maybe a "machine" but it is not an algorithmic-logical machine.

If it is a machine it has no linear algorithmic structure or program.

#71 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 18 October 2009 - 10:31 AM

I think the problem is that people believe there is consciousness.

I couldn't agree more as Daniel Dennett says "The soul exists but its mechanical."


If there is no consciousness then a stone exists the same way than you exist.

So it is the same experience "to be a stone" than "to be a human being"?

What does it mean "to be a stone"? Is it a meaningful question?

I don't think so.

But the question "what is it like to be a human" is meaningful!

I recommend you to read Thomas Nagel's "What Is it Like to Be a Bat?", Philosophical Review, pp. 435-50.

http://organizations...5/nagel_bat.pdf

Consciousness has a name now, it is called "qualia".

A stone has no qualia, but you have qualia.

So there is consciousness and the materialist and neo-positivist philosophy of the XX. century is simply a false paradigm.



Yes! from an objective point of view a human is just like a stone and doesn't matter at all.
The human functions different than the stone but it has no real purpose, nothing has, nothing matters.

For the human, with all its programming, sensations and emotions, the human is important!

Life is what we make it to be, remember?
The meaning is life is what we choose for it, and as we say that we must always realize we are no different than the rest of the particles in value and overall purpose but only in function and properties.
Humans are important because we chose them to be so, we were able to choose so because of our functioning we evolved, yet in the whole picture, nothing seems to be, with our current knowledge..

#72 Custodiam

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 18 October 2009 - 01:04 PM

Yes! from an objective point of view a human is just like a stone and doesn't matter at all.


The problem is the objective-subjective distinction.

What you call a "stone" is only your subjective experience.

What objective is the source of that experience, which Kant called thing-in-itself (Dinge-an-sich).

But you have to accept, that the reality you see, hear, touch etc. cannot exist the way you experience it, because your experience is only sense data in your consciousness.

The world cannot be sense data in itself!

Naive materialism, the belief that sense data is independent of consciousness is wrong.

#73 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,442 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 18 October 2009 - 01:38 PM

Good thoughts and discussion here and it is somewhat related to the topic at hand....but drifting a little.

Perhaps a better place to discuss consciousness would be:

What is consciousness?

or

Can software alone simulate consciousness?

Happy reading!

#74 Custodiam

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 18 October 2009 - 02:51 PM

Yes, we are drifting a little. Anyway, all I tried to say was that I remember how enthusiastic I was in the 1980s about new technologies.

These new technologies wasn't able to create any Utopian society or technology.

So I'm sceptical about the achievability of immortality in 20 years time.

I still don't see any serious result or technology.

The philosophical side-notes tried to show how far we really are from a solution.

#75 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,442 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 18 October 2009 - 03:24 PM

Why I think Kurzweil's predictions have a better chance of standing the test of time is that he tries to tie his predictions to a fundamental physical/mathematical law - law of accelerating returns. I am not saying the law is really a "physical law" at this point - it certainly needs some more vetting and fleshing out - however, at least his predictions are not completely made up from imagination and extrapolation from current technology, but from a reading and analysis of the history of technology and progress.

#76 Custodiam

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 18 October 2009 - 04:16 PM

Why I think Kurzweil's predictions have a better chance of standing the test of time is that he tries to tie his predictions to a fundamental physical/mathematical law - law of accelerating returns. I am not saying the law is really a "physical law" at this point - it certainly needs some more vetting and fleshing out - however, at least his predictions are not completely made up from imagination and extrapolation from current technology, but from a reading and analysis of the history of technology and progress.


I think some historical comparison can be useful.

From the 5th century BC to the 4th AD the ancient greco-roman civilisation was able to achieve unbelievable technological breakthroughs. They were on the brink of industrial revolution yet they failed.

The cause of the failure was simple: their intellectual, economic and social skills were not developed enough. Instead of the dark ages the Roman Empire could have entered the renaissance - and by now we could have space travel for a thousand years.

My fear is the same: we have the technology, but our intellectual, economic and social skills aren't up to the task.

Edited by Custodiam, 18 October 2009 - 04:17 PM.


#77 Berserker

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 0

Posted 18 October 2009 - 04:22 PM

Yes, we are drifting a little. Anyway, all I tried to say was that I remember how enthusiastic I was in the 1980s about new technologies.

These new technologies wasn't able to create any Utopian society or technology.

So I'm sceptical about the achievability of immortality in 20 years time.

I still don't see any serious result or technology.

The philosophical side-notes tried to show how far we really are from a solution.


I wasn’t alive in the 80s but...¿aren’t we improving? I mean, by 1980, how many people used to have internet? what about mobile phones? ¿plasma tvs? Computers?
And in medicine, what about the human genome? nanotechnology?

I think that we don’t realise how much we progress...

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#78 Custodiam

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 18 October 2009 - 04:32 PM

Yes, of course we are improving.

But...The Internet started in 1969 and in 1989 there were already limited commercial use too...

Moore's law is from 1965...

It is a very slow progress.

As I child in the early 80s I already played with handheld electronic games. In the 1980s the CD started.

Today's world is not that different for me.

I think the progress is very-very slow.

Edited by Custodiam, 18 October 2009 - 04:39 PM.


#79 Berserker

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 0

Posted 18 October 2009 - 05:00 PM

I think that we don’t realise how fats the thing improve, so we say that that nothing changes…but if you compare the ps2 (from just 9 years ago) with the ps3 now, this last one is much more master and powerful. The same with mp3 and mobiles phone…if you compare the ipod touch and mobiles of today with the mp3 and mobiles of just 5 years ago, they changed a lot. With the computers is the same. 10 years ago a computer used to have just 10gb of capacity and 64mb of ram…today all computers have unless 400gb of capacity and 4000mb of ram.

And the same process for all the technology. Its just that we don’t realise how rapid it changes as we live day to day.

#80 Custodiam

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 18 October 2009 - 05:24 PM

I think that we don't realise how fats the thing improve, so we say that that nothing changes…but if you compare the ps2 (from just 9 years ago) with the ps3 now, this last one is much more master and powerful. The same with mp3 and mobiles phone…if you compare the ipod touch and mobiles of today with the mp3 and mobiles of just 5 years ago, they changed a lot. With the computers is the same. 10 years ago a computer used to have just 10gb of capacity and 64mb of ram…today all computers have unless 400gb of capacity and 4000mb of ram.

And the same process for all the technology. Its just that we don't realise how rapid it changes as we live day to day.


We are building the same appliances with more memory, speed etc..

Mostly with the same function.

It is not a different level of technology.

#81 CerebralCortex

  • Guest
  • 123 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Limerick, Ireland

Posted 18 October 2009 - 06:05 PM

We are building the same appliances with more memory, speed etc..

Mostly with the same function.

It is not a different level of technology.


When I was 10 my familly and I got our first vhs player where we could watch movies (once we'd rewound the vhs :O ) at a whim. Comparing that to now, I have an iPhone where I can surf the web, send messages to anyone in the world, navigate using 3g location and a map of any part of the world and by tapping into the internet... ...wait for it watch a whole repositiory of movies at a whim. Imho the biggest obstical to advancement is nothing more than wanton ignorance.

#82 Custodiam

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 19 October 2009 - 06:06 AM

We are building the same appliances with more memory, speed etc..

Mostly with the same function.

It is not a different level of technology.


When I was 10 my familly and I got our first vhs player where we could watch movies (once we'd rewound the vhs :O ) at a whim. Comparing that to now, I have an iPhone where I can surf the web, send messages to anyone in the world, navigate using 3g location and a map of any part of the world and by tapping into the internet... ...wait for it watch a whole repositiory of movies at a whim. Imho the biggest obstical to advancement is nothing more than wanton ignorance.


The biggest obstacle to advancement is the ignorance of those, who are satisfied with illusionary advancements and gadgets.

The digitization of video signal was first suggested in 1961.

The first digital camera was commercially available in 1988.

It was technological breakthrough in 1988 and it is not a breakthrough now.

To be honest, immortality needs technology we can't even imagine right now.

In my opinion technological fetishism and technology worship is as useless as building temples.

Instead of "God delusion" some of us have "Technology delusion".

I'm not saying that we won't be able to achieve immortality, I'm saying that nobody knows really the technological challenge we are facing.

Techno-religious fanaticism won't help us, because instead of real work it makes us only complacent.

Only rational thinking will help.

I still think that despite of big words and brave predictions the whole immortality project needs more focus.

Edited by Custodiam, 19 October 2009 - 06:18 AM.


⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#83 Custodiam

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 19 October 2009 - 06:25 AM

I have to add that in my opinion "nanotechnology" can simply be substituted in many transhumanist texts with the word "magic".

This is alarming.

#84 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,442 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 19 October 2009 - 06:53 AM

Strange how perceptions differ. When I grew up I had to dial a rotary phone to make a call (to connect via audio VR to another person) and it was very expensive to dial long distance. Our family always made sure to not stay on the phone very long in order save money.

Today I can make a free video phone call (or very nearly free, through Skype) anywhere in the world with one click of a mouse.

A pessimist would say, that nothing has really changed...a phone call is just a phone call...your deluding yourself if you call that progress.

I call it substantial technological progress. The progress seems to have been dramatic in my life, across multiple industries and technologies.

#85 Custodiam

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 19 October 2009 - 07:13 AM

Strange how perceptions differ. When I grew up I had to dial a rotary phone to make a call (to connect via audio VR to another person) and it was very expensive to dial long distance. Our family always made sure to not stay on the phone very long in order save money.

Today I can make a free video phone call (or very nearly free, through Skype) anywhere in the world with one click of a mouse.

A pessimist would say, that nothing has really changed...a phone call is just a phone call...you deluding yourself if you call that progress.

I call it substantial technological progress. The progress seems to have been dramatic in my life, across multiple industries and technologies.


In my opinion immortality is not in the same category as making a video phone call.

This delusion is what I'm trying to warn you about.

Some of us have no clue how tricky and unpredictable the human body is.

The human body is not a primitive PC or a car.

If you go to the doctor in most cases he/she has no clue what is going on in your body. Doctors are using statistical guessing and the "make no harm" rule to treat you in most cases.

To make it simple: the iconic "20 years" is my problem here and now, not the undeniable pace of technological development.

We are seriously underestimating the technological challenge of immortality.

My goal is the same as yours, but I think we are just waiting for the miracle to happen.

We must try harder.

Edited by Custodiam, 19 October 2009 - 07:15 AM.


#86 Berserker

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 October 2009 - 07:55 AM

Well Custodiam I agree with you in the point that 20 years is too early, and specially too early for a general use. Even if they discover a way to extend human life significantly, it’s going to take decades to implement them for the trouble that it will case in the society…

It’s the same with all the examples that you said before (digital cameras, videos, etc…) They appeared many years ago, but it takes a few years for a general use.

Anyway, I don’t agree with the statement that we are not progressing that much…for example, what you said today it could be similar of what people might say in 2040 when nanotechnology is going to be more common that today…”its not such a big change, nanotechnology was invented in the 90’s”

Anyway yeah, the singularity is a king of religion in many ways, as you got faith in technology and science instead in a God. You are expecting amazing technology that you don’t know if its going to be ever available.

Edited by Berserker, 19 October 2009 - 07:56 AM.


#87 CerebralCortex

  • Guest
  • 123 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Limerick, Ireland

Posted 24 October 2009 - 03:33 PM

Anyway yeah, the singularity is a king of religion in many ways, as you got faith in technology and science instead in a God. You are expecting amazing technology that you don’t know if its going to be ever available.


How exactly is an exponential growth in the development of technology in anyway like a religion? For a start you don't have to believe its going to happen or even know its going to happen its just an estimate on where we're going technologically based on the evidence i.e. where we are going technologically. We are advancing to technologically fact, we are doing it faster than we have ever in our entire history fact, I'm sorry I don't see where I need faith? Technology has consistently improved the human condition, religion has not. For example I have all my adult teeth down to modern dentistry not through faith in it but because it works. Faith in God did not fix the tendinitis in my knee modern medicine did. To be honest I'm ranting because I can't believe someone registered to a forum called the Immortality Institute would say such a thing. Rant over.

#88 Berserker

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 0

Posted 24 October 2009 - 04:57 PM

Its a kind of religion because same people think that nanotechnology and more technology advanced will salve all the human problems and even bring immortality to anyone. That makes non sense for me. Not in 20 years. Not in our lifetime.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#89 CerebralCortex

  • Guest
  • 123 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Limerick, Ireland

Posted 24 October 2009 - 05:18 PM

Its a kind of religion because same people think that nanotechnology and more technology advanced will salve


Think being the operative word.

all the human problems and even bring immortality to anyone.


Religion to me is faith in something in the absence of empirical evidence for the truth of that thing. To say or predict immortality is only 20 years away maybe a faith based or almost religious proposition if such propositions were based entirely on faith alone. The truth however is those people who talk of the singularity etc. aren't fantasy writers they're working scientists and engineers who can only work through empirical evidence if they are to remain being called scientists or engineers. Religion is the antithesis of science. May I remind you that no other force has solved more problems than humanities innovation, ingenuity and its resulting technology from vaccines to internal combustion engines.

That makes non sense for me.


Obviously.

Not in 20 years. Not in our lifetime.


Faith based statement if ever I heard one.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#90 KalaBeth

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • -3

Posted 24 October 2009 - 11:34 PM

I have to add that in my opinion "nanotechnology" can simply be substituted in many transhumanist texts with the word "magic".

This is alarming.


Actually, I kind of agree with this.
Not universally, but here and there.

What that says to me though is not that it's necessarily impossible or overblown - or even that the timeframe is necessarily off - but rather that we need less visionaries and more engineers... or at least, more engineering homework on the part of (some of) our visionaries.

Anyone can paint fanciful word pictures of The World of Tomorrow... picking up a (metaphorical) shovel and working towards it is a whole other level of commitment. That's one thing I appreciate about Kurzweil.. for all the "dogcrap in the gourmet meal" nuttiness there might be, the man builds stuff. He builds things that honestly help people in the real world. That much I have to respect.

... I do agree 20 years is overly optimistic, unless one is talking solely of the opening stages of a longer "escape velocity" process, not the whole thing as a fait accompli.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users