flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > does the devil know what you are thinking right now?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Free will, as defined in religion of course, means you make your own choices -- even if they are influenced by many factors (knowledge is one example), but you still choose from a limited set of options. And when this choice is between a sinful way/non-sinful way then it's either bad/good (of course this is assuming what religion says). And you of course have to know that, otherwise you're innocent, but anyone who read this thread knows now Razz (i.e animals are 'innocent' cause they can't reason/choose and not even know anyway).

As for randomness, Azu it might be random after all, because of quantum mechanics (still not known though). This may not be free will, but certainly not very predictable.

This isn't going in the right way though. This thread isn't about whether free will exists or not, or whether religion or the Bible are true or not. It's whether the Devil, assuming from those religions of course, knows what you think or not.

Azu wrote:
It would be better if he could do all those things without any chance of anything bad happening. Presumably deitie(s) are omnipotent and can make things be like this, if they want to.
I'm pretty sure kids know that getting drunk ain't healthy but they still want it. Well some of them anyway, I wasn't one of them Very Happy

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 25 Feb 2009, 19:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Free will, as defined in religion of course, means you make your own choices -- even if they are influenced by many factors (knowledge is one example), but you still choose from a limited set of options. And when this choice is between a sinful way/non-sinful way then it's either bad/good (of course this is assuming what religion says). And you of course have to know that, otherwise you're innocent, but anyone who read this thread knows now Razz (i.e animals are 'innocent' cause they can't reason/choose and not even know anyway).
Choose how? At random, or based on past experiences, current condition, and genetic predispositions?
If the former.. wouldn't EVERYTHING behave completely randomly, not just brains? Or are brains made out of a completely different type of matter then everything else? If so, why are they grown out of normal matter?

And the latter is causal determinism not free will. Confused Unless you mean direct cause and effect aren't inherently exclusive to free will.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
It would be better if he could do all those things without any chance of anything bad happening. Presumably deitie(s) are omnipotent and can make things be like this, if they want to.
I'm pretty sure kids know that getting drunk ain't healthy but they still want it. Well some of them anyway, I wasn't one of them Very Happy
Sorry, I guess the way I worded that was confusing.
Let me try again; if there is a god, and it is omnipotent, it could make there be no negative consequences to anything, without taking away our ability to do those things. So
1. There aren't any god(s).
2. There are, but it (or they) aren't omnipotent.
3. It/they're omnipotent, but have decided there should be lots of evil in lots of things AND (note: and, not or) that people should be able to do those things.
Post 25 Feb 2009, 19:53
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
As for randomness, Azu it might be random after all, because of quantum mechanics (still not known though). This may not be free will, but certainly not very predictable.

No, randomness is not predictable only in very small set of predictions. When you have lot of cases to predict, then randomness is greatly predictable. That is, in fact, how they disproved "local variable" hypothesis for quantum stuff, leaving randomness as a viable explanation: Predictions of local variable hypothesis were not met, while predictions of randomness were met. Predictability of randomness on large scale is also the reason why quantum effects do not manifest at our level.
Post 25 Feb 2009, 20:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
vid wrote:
Quote:
As for randomness, Azu it might be random after all, because of quantum mechanics (still not known though). This may not be free will, but certainly not very predictable.

No, randomness is not predictable only in very small set of predictions. When you have lot of cases to predict, then randomness is greatly predictable. That is, in fact, how they disproved "local variable" hypothesis for quantum stuff, leaving randomness as a viable explanation: Predictions of local variable hypothesis were not met, while predictions of randomness were met. Predictability of randomness on large scale is also the reason why quantum effects do not manifest at our level.


There not being latency between cause and effect doesn't prove the effect is random..
Post 25 Feb 2009, 20:21
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
There not being latency between cause and effect doesn't prove the effect is random..

Never said it does.

(To save us some time, I was reffering to Bell's theorem, not what seems to be the "effect at distance" - that doesn't even disprove local variable theories)
Post 25 Feb 2009, 21:43
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Coddy41 wrote:
I could hack revolutions brain
You are welcome to go ahead. But don't be too disappointed when you find it full of nonsense. Please clean out all the useless stuff while you are there hacking it, thanks.
Post 26 Feb 2009, 00:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8864
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

it is like a child eating some apple to become a parent. You may think that it is "forwards" or "progress" to become a parent, but remember that a parent has a lot more responsibilities and a lot more difficulties, compared to a child who mostly plays around.

so in ur opinion, God wants us to be a child or an adult?
Post 26 Feb 2009, 18:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
No, randomness is not predictable only in very small set of predictions. When you have lot of cases to predict, then randomness is greatly predictable. That is, in fact, how they disproved "local variable" hypothesis for quantum stuff, leaving randomness as a viable explanation: Predictions of local variable hypothesis were not met, while predictions of randomness were met. Predictability of randomness on large scale is also the reason why quantum effects do not manifest at our level.
Ever heard of Schrodinger's Cat? I think killing a cat is a pretty large-scale event, don't you think?

The brain may be influenced heavily by quantum mechanics -- I don't necessarily believe it (that doesn't imply free will, just randomness), but it can affect "large-scale" things because the brain tells our body (which is 'big') what to do. Just like in Schrodinger's Cat, a tiny atom tells the whole mechanism when to kill the cat -- in effect, a "large effect".

sleepsleep wrote:
so in ur opinion, God wants us to be a child or an adult?
whatever you choose Wink
of course he advises them to not be parents as it is harder, even if you do feel more 'powerful' or 'knowledgeable'. Remember, with power comes responsibility.

But if you want to be an adult, prepare to take on the responsibilities and consequences Wink

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 27 Feb 2009, 20:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
@revolution: Points from 3 and beyond above are kinda weak. I mean, even in the Matrix (nothing sort of supernatural depending on your definition) it was able to run this up. Of course if the Universe is some computer it is "powerful" enough to handle it, otherwise we would see lag in our world. Laughing
dosin wrote:
what a suprise it would be to all - if we were in the matrix! Laughing
Image
Post 28 Feb 2009, 05:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Somehow I think the Universe is analog Laughing
Post 28 Feb 2009, 17:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
I was expecting how long it takes since you bring the "brain is quantum amplifier" hypothesis. Yes, of course it is possible to "amplify" quantum effects to larger scale, it just normally doesn't happen at all. Do you have particular reason to claim human brain does this, or is it just wishfull thinking?

Also, even if brain was an amplifier of quantum effects, and I have yet to see any data which would support this claim, it would in fact make "soul" standing behind the quantum effects in brain just a primitive random number generator, nothing more. Sticking whatever-you-want-to-be-true into THIS gap doesn't save you.
Post 28 Feb 2009, 18:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
vid wrote:
Quote:
There not being latency between cause and effect doesn't prove the effect is random..

Never said it does.

(To save us some time, I was reffering to Bell's theorem, not what seems to be the "effect at distance" - that doesn't even disprove local variable theories)
Oh, okay. Nevermind then.

Borsuc wrote:
The brain may be influenced heavily by quantum mechanics -- I don't necessarily believe it (that doesn't imply free will, just randomness), but it can affect "large-scale" things because the brain tells our body (which is 'big') what to do. Just like in Schrodinger's Cat, a tiny atom tells the whole mechanism when to kill the cat -- in effect, a "large effect".
But wasn't that your whole reason for thinking there is some kind of "free will" as opposed to all our actions just being simple cause and effect? If not.. what is? Confused

Borsuc wrote:

of course he advises them to not be parents as it is harder, even if you do feel more 'powerful' or 'knowledgeable'. Remember, with power comes responsibility.

But if you want to be an adult, prepare to take on the responsibilities and consequences Wink
IIRC eating the forbidden fruit = makes you stupid and paranoid so that you feel shame over perfectly natural things, though. What's that have to do with becoming a parent? Confused
Post 01 Mar 2009, 04:00
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
I was expecting how long it takes since you bring the "brain is quantum amplifier" hypothesis. Yes, of course it is possible to "amplify" quantum effects to larger scale, it just normally doesn't happen at all. Do you have particular reason to claim human brain does this, or is it just wishfull thinking?
That would mean I believe the brain is random, which I don't (since free will =/= random). However, being random is more plausible than being deterministic, so when I leave my beliefs aside, that's what I choose (random). The brain isn't like a processor, as it doesn't generate so much heat (maybe lower voltage/resistance?). And even a processor these days is influenced by quantum mechanics 'noise' (randomness), unless of course you change the transistor design like Intel did, or increase the voltage (not plausible). I posted somewhere back where it said that the brain may actually function with sound rather than electricity also. (explaining the heating issue: remember the brain is a 3D "CPU", so volume to surface ration is high!!!).

Amplification isn't hard, in fact it's NATURAL. If a given neuron is influenced by randomness, then it will affect all the others, in a way, like a chain reaction. Thus giving 'randomness' on a large scale.

I'm not saying this is pro-free-will. But you know, just arguing against determinism (again, not just in humans, but in CPUs as well). Determinism is no different. Determinism is a belief.

I have no problem with admitting that free will is a belief myself. Do you? Razz

Azu wrote:
IIRC eating the forbidden fruit = makes you stupid and paranoid so that you feel shame over perfectly natural things, though. What's that have to do with becoming a parent? Confused
From the Tree of Knowledge.

that's the most important notion in this whole 'metaphor', not the FRUIT (as per biological) Laughing

Kinda like, with knowledge comes responsibility. In fact, look @ Neo in the Matrix -- he made a similar choice, when taking the Red Pill Wink

Is it important that it was a PILL? Would it have made any difference if it was a Red Apple or Blue Apple choice? Think of the 'message' behind Wink

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 01 Mar 2009, 17:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:

Azu wrote:
IIRC eating the forbidden fruit = makes you stupid and paranoid so that you feel shame over perfectly natural things, though. What's that have to do with becoming a parent? Confused
From the Tree of Knowledge.

that's the most important notion in this whole 'metaphor', not the FRUIT (as per biological) Laughing

Kinda like, with knowledge comes responsibility. In fact, look @ Neo in the Matrix -- he made a similar choice, when taking the Red Pill Wink

Is it important that it was a PILL? Would it have made any difference if it was a Red Apple or Blue Apple choice? Think of the 'message' behind Wink
But the red pill makes you smart, and the tree of "knowledge" makes you stupid.. Confused

I mean didn't it make adam and eve forget how to speak to god/jesus/etc, and instill human-body-phobia in them? Seems pretty stupid to me.

Now if it taught them the meaning of life, or how to cure all diseases, or something like that.. it would be a different story.
Post 01 Mar 2009, 17:08
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
If a given neuron is influenced by randomness, then it will affect all the others, in a way, like a chain reaction.

But to support "quantum brain", you need more than just chain reaction "influence". You need to prove amplification of single "random" state. IMO if some quantum fluctuation causes single neuron to fire nanosecond earlier at first neuron, and then nanosecond later on second neuron in chain, these values are too small to make difference for brain (that operates at much slower speeds). Difference that would be completely insignifact compared to case when both neurons fire at average time without fluctuations (as modeled by traditional non-quantum deterministic physics).

You need to prove that actual "output" of brain is significantly different than output predicted by deterministic physics, that substitutes random quantum fluctuations by average value. So far, effects like this were only observed under very specific conditions, like double slit experiment etc. Vast majority of natural processes on this scale are perfectly predictable by just substituting average values. Do you have anything to support claim that human brain is an exception, or is it just wishful thinking?

Quote:
Determinism is a belief. I have no problem with admitting that free will is a belief myself. Do you?

We would need to define "determinism" and "belief" first. I would say "belief" is considering something as true without evidence, or against contrary evidence. Determinism is aspect of model of our reality, and as such it either can explain and predict observed phenomena, or not. I view determinism as such, nothing more. I view traditional Newtonian determinism as disproved, and I view existing deterministic interpretation of quantum effects as a hard to grasp theory, but still correctly accounting for observed phenomena. That may of course change in future, with new data. Since this view is based on data available, I don't consider it to be a belief. Do you?
Post 01 Mar 2009, 19:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
vid wrote:
Quote:
If a given neuron is influenced by randomness, then it will affect all the others, in a way, like a chain reaction.

But to support "quantum brain", you need more than just chain reaction "influence". You need to prove amplification of single "random" state. IMO if some quantum fluctuation causes single neuron to fire nanosecond earlier at first neuron, and then nanosecond later on second neuron in chain, these values are too small to make difference for brain (that operates at much slower speeds). Difference that would be completely insignifact compared to case when both neurons fire at average time without fluctuations (as modeled by traditional non-quantum deterministic physics).

You need to prove that actual "output" of brain is significantly different than output predicted by deterministic physics, that substitutes random quantum fluctuations by average value. So far, effects like this were only observed under very specific conditions, like double slit experiment etc. Vast majority of natural processes on this scale are perfectly predictable by just substituting average values. Do you have anything to support claim that human brain is an exception, or is it just wishful thinking?

Quote:
Determinism is a belief. I have no problem with admitting that free will is a belief myself. Do you?

We would need to define "determinism" and "belief" first. I would say "belief" is considering something as true without evidence, or against contrary evidence. Determinism is aspect of model of our reality, and as such it either can explain and predict observed phenomena, or not. I view determinism as such, nothing more. I view traditional Newtonian determinism as disproved, and I view existing deterministic interpretation of quantum effects as a hard to grasp theory, but still correctly accounting for observed phenomena. That may of course change in future, with new data. Since this view is based on data available, I don't consider it to be a belief. Do you?


Believing something just means you think it is true.

If you believe something that isn't true, it is called "being wrong".

If you believe something that isn't proven either way, it is called "assuming".

These aren't mutually exclusive or inclusive.



e.g.;

"Earth is round" is a true belief.

"Earth is flat" is a false belief.

"The universe was made by pixies/god/superman/flying monkeys" is an assumptive belief, maybe true maybe false. All assumptions are completely equal unless one of them has more evidence then the others.
Post 01 Mar 2009, 19:19
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
You need to prove that actual "output" of brain is significantly different than output predicted by deterministic physics, that substitutes random quantum fluctuations by average value.
I think it has strong chances to be influenced given its size. If I didn't believe in free will, I would probably go with that.

However, it is important to note here that what you say is that "determinstic, unless proven otherwise" when in fact, determinism must be proven as well (else it is a belief). I can't actually see the output as no one has ever done yet -- thus not even determinism can be proved.

I mean, when was the last time you predicted 100% the brain's output?
What about 50%? 30%? Where do you draw the line between determinism and random?

vid wrote:
We would need to define "determinism" and "belief" first. I would say "belief" is considering something as true without evidence, or against contrary evidence. Determinism is aspect of model of our reality, and as such it either can explain and predict observed phenomena, or not. I view determinism as such, nothing more.
Yes indeed that is good way, I've seen too many idiots taking science as more than just a "tool" (on other forums) going into the religion direction. However, we haven't predicted the brain very well yet (I could say just pure luck Razz).

vid wrote:
I view traditional Newtonian determinism as disproved, and I view existing deterministic interpretation of quantum effects as a hard to grasp theory, but still correctly accounting for observed phenomena.
Deterministic quantum mechanics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism.2C_quantum_mechanics.2C_and_classical_physics

Also I noticed it says there within the accuracy of measurement. Hmm, where do you draw the line? Is a 50% "accuracy of measurement" still deterministic? This makes it impossible for any 50% quantum mechanical effects to be considered random, and so on.

Also note, that randomness cannot be measured as in theory. In practice, one doesn't have infinite time and research to spend on the randomness for it to converge and distributed uniformly!


Yes Azu, that's what I meant with belief, and assumptions are necessary in all areas, even in mathematics (called 'axioms'). Of course it depends on various factors but they're still nonetheless assumptions.

Azu wrote:
"Earth is flat" is a false belief.
Some crazy people on the net Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 02 Mar 2009, 19:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
vid wrote:
You need to prove that actual "output" of brain is significantly different than output predicted by deterministic physics, that substitutes random quantum fluctuations by average value.
I think it has strong chances to be influenced given its size. If I didn't believe in free will, I would probably go with that.
I thought that WAS your excuse for "free will" (as opposed to cause and effect)? If not.. what is?


Borsuc wrote:
Yes Azu, that's what I meant with belief, and assumptions are necessary in all areas, even in mathematics (called 'axioms'). Of course it depends on various factors but they're still nonetheless assumptions.
Like I said, there are different levels of assumptions. Based on logic and experience, an assumption that when I click the submit button my browser will try to send my post to this forum, is a very sensible assumption, even if I don't know 100% for sure. This is much better then assuming something that has NO experience or logic to back it up.

Even completely wrong assumptions like Earth being flat can have SOME logic and experience to them.

e.g.;

When ships venture out past a certain point, they vanish from sight, and never come back.


That has infinitely more basis then complete assumptions like "everything was created by God" that have NOTHING to back them up (i.e. differentiate them from flat out lies e.g.; "My name is hsjdgfjh and I'm 10 feet tall") at all.
Post 02 Mar 2009, 19:58
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
However, it is important to note here that what you say is that "determinstic, unless proven otherwise" when in fact, determinism must be proven as well (else it is a belief).

It was proven (in scientific means of proving) over and over until discovery of quantum phenomena, and until then it was able to explain and predict everything. Therefor, huge majority of events at our scale is predictable with determinism without noticeable error on our scale, and only extremely tiny minority isn't (it took centuries millenias of experimenting and high-tech hardware to find one). Thus, any event at our scale is waaaaay more likely to be predictable by classical deterministic theory than not. Thus, you are one who is claiming something very improbable (that one particular thing belongs to tiny minority of things at our scale whose behavior can't be predicted by determinism), and so burden on proof is on you.

Quote:
I mean, when was the last time you predicted 100% the brain's output? What about 50%? 30%? Where do you draw the line between determinism and random?

If there is some amplifying going on, it obviously doesn't happen in single step, by the quantum fluctuation from average value used by determinism, has to be amplified step by step. That allows analysis (something that I thing you don't want to allow, so that you can stay in realm of unknown, where you can harmonize your beliefs with science without testing them, eg. without risk of discovering your beliefs are false). But analysis is possible anyway (even if the amplification of quantum fluctuation happened in a single neuron, and not step-by-step). Can you explain the mechanism which amplifies the quantum fluctuation in a neuron?

I am not the one making claim - I say that brain is just like anything else at our scale, beheaving in a such way that quantum effects don't cause difference noticeable at our scale. You are the one claiming brain is a rare exception (like double slit experiment with single-electron gun and special detector over each slit) that is able to demonstrate quantum effect at our scale. YOU are the one making improbable claim.

In fact, we are lucky to have a guy who have dealt with neurology. Tom, can you please comment on Borsucs's "alternative belief", that brain is a device that amplifies tiny differences of values predicted by quantum physics from values predicted by traditional physics, so much that differences become major even at our scale, and cause different "decisions" (up to level of moving or not a hand, saying different word, etc)?

Quote:
However, we haven't predicted the brain very well yet (I could say just pure luck ).

Of course not entire, but that's IMO more because of its complexity (the size), and not because of some non-deterministic mechanisms going on. Again, tom's comment could clear out whether there indeed is some nondeterministic quantum mechanism influencing brain in a major way.

Quote:
Also I noticed it says there within the accuracy of measurement. Hmm, where do you draw the line? Is a 50% "accuracy of measurement" still deterministic? This makes it impossible for any 50% quantum mechanical effects to be considered random, and so on.

You are still ignoring the fact that true randomness (such as quantum randomness is, according to latest science) becomes almost perfectly deterministic at a large scale. If there is true_random(2) taken twice, i can say that it will be 50% times 0 and 50% times 1 with only a very high margin of error. However, if I call true_random(2) zillion times, I can say it will be 50% times 0 and 50% times 1 with minimal margin of error. That's the principe of casinos, and that's also why quantum effects are rarely apparent in this quantum-based world at this scale - you really need some very specific apparatus to amplify one single fluctuation. This is maybe 3rd time I am repeating this - is that so hard to grasp? Randomness is perfectly predictable with minimal relative error at large scale . In fact, that predictability is the way how quantum effects were proven to be random by Bell's Theorem. If you disallow that predictability of randomness at large scale, you can't even claim quantum effects are random.
Post 03 Mar 2009, 00:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
vid wrote:
You are still ignoring the fact that true randomness (such as quantum randomness is, according to latest science)
vid wrote:
quantum effects were proven to be random by Bell's Theorem.


But all Bell's Theorem does is disproves local hidden variable theories.

That doesn't prove that things happen for no reason.


The Bohm interpretation, for example, doesn't need local hidden variables OR senselessness.
Post 03 Mar 2009, 05:12
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.