6 of 35
6
The Mystery of Consciousness - Not so mysterious?
Posted: 28 October 2011 11:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
eucaryote - 28 October 2011 01:48 PM

Well, because we understand how eyes and how the cognitive process called vision works.

Exactly, and we know this from research on the human brain and eyes. The subjects in such research were assumed to be conscious and have vision, because they were human.

There is no need to experience the cat’s experience to know that it has one.

Its not possible for us to be sure that cats are conscious, or even that other perfectly healthy human beings are conscious. We can make an educated guess, based on their behavior, but thats it.

So consciousness is an immaterial thing not part of the physical organism having the experience but you can fool the consciousness by fooling the physical organism?

“physical” is defined by what physics has identified. I know some people use the term physical to mean “everything”, but that is metaphysics not science. The idea that consciousness is not physical does not imply dualism because physicalism isnt the only kind of monism. Other types are panpsychism/panexperientalism, neutral monism, idealism and probably more.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2011 04:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
srrr - 28 October 2011 03:42 PM
eucaryote - 28 October 2011 01:48 PM

Well, because we understand how eyes and how the cognitive process called vision works.

Exactly, and we know this from research on the human brain and eyes. The subjects in such research were assumed to be conscious and have vision, because they were human.

No, we know this from a huge host of research, most of it done on animals.

There is no need to experience the cat’s experience to know that it has one.

srrr - 28 October 2011 03:42 PM

Its not possible for us to be sure that cats are conscious, or even that other perfectly healthy human beings are conscious. We can make an educated guess, based on their behavior, but thats it.

That’s only because you’ve defined this word in the way that you have, as a magical, mysterious, and undetectable thing.  It’s like you are trying to describe your invisible friend whose only salient feature is invisibility.

So consciousness is an immaterial thing not part of the physical organism having the experience but you can fool the consciousness by fooling the physical organism?

“physical” is defined by what physics has identified.

srrr - 28 October 2011 03:42 PM

I know some people use the term physical to mean “everything”, but that is metaphysics not science. The idea that consciousness is not physical does not imply dualism because physicalism isnt the only kind of monism. Other types are panpsychism/panexperientalism, neutral monism, idealism and probably more.

Well, I think that’s all perfect bullshit.

This “conciousness” is dependent on functioning physical organisms to make itself manifest, is that not true? Also, as you pointed out, the accuracy of the “consciousness” with respect to correctly tracking real events is also dependent on functioning organisms, it that not true?
So the “consciousness” is both immaterial and independent of the physical, functioning organism, but at the same time the “consciousness” is dependent on the physical organism in the ways described above. 1. for it’s existence 2. for it’s accuracy

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 03:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2009-07-31
eucaryote - 28 October 2011 08:48 PM

There is no need to experience the cat’s experience to know that it has one.

srrr - 28 October 2011 03:42 PM

Its not possible for us to be sure that cats are conscious, or even that other perfectly healthy human beings are conscious. We can make an educated guess, based on their behavior, but thats it.

That’s only because you’ve defined this word in the way that you have, as a magical, mysterious, and undetectable thing.  It’s like you are trying to describe your invisible friend whose only salient feature is invisibility.

srrr is not saying it is magical. That is your strawman. I believe his position is that experience is fundamental and intrinsic. The problem with materialism is that it precludes the possibility of experience being fundamental by fiat. There are emergent properties and there are fundamental properties in ANY THEORY. It is absurd to say that experience must be emergent because materialism says so. That is a philisophical claim, not a scientific theory.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 03:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2009-07-31
eucaryote - 28 October 2011 08:48 PM

This “conciousness” is dependent on functioning physical organisms to make itself manifest, is that not true? Also, as you pointed out, the accuracy of the “consciousness” with respect to correctly tracking real events is also dependent on functioning organisms, it that not true?
So the “consciousness” is both immaterial and independent of the physical, functioning organism, but at the same time the “consciousness” is dependent on the physical organism in the ways described above. 1. for it’s existence 2. for it’s accuracy

The universe also needs intelligent life to make itself manifest. If we were not here to talk about about it, who would it be manifest to? That does not mean it did not exist before intelligent life. What you are saying is true of anything.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 05:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
eucaryote - 28 October 2011 08:48 PM

No, we know this from a huge host of research, most of it done on animals.

Remember the “this” we are talking about is consciousness. No research on animals has shown us their consciousness or allowed us to experience what it is like to be a cat/ant/microbe/etc.

That’s only because you’ve defined this word in the way that you have, as a magical, mysterious, and undetectable thing.  It’s like you are trying to describe your invisible friend whose only salient feature is invisibility.

Actually i defined consciousness theoretically neutral. I simply refer to the experiences we have, without making any statement about consciousness being physical or not. Noone can deny those experiences exist, unless that person is also going to deny all scientific experiments (science is based on empiricism, which means “to experience”). After all, if one denies that humans have sensory experiences, then one must also deny any knowledge of any experiment which we know about through sensory experience. How do we know particles exist if not through empiricism?


So which is it: accept that consciousness exists, or reject all of science?

Well, I think that’s all perfect bullshit.

This “conciousness” is dependent on functioning physical organisms to make itself manifest, is that not true? Also, as you pointed out, the accuracy of the “consciousness” with respect to correctly tracking real events is also dependent on functioning organisms, it that not true?

You lost me here. “consciousness makes itself manifest”,  “it depends on the functioning physical”, “tracking real events”. It looks like you are off into another dimension here. Replace the word “consciousness” with “electron” or “rock” and you see how nonsensical this has gotten. Do rocks make themself manifest? Do they depend on “the physical”? Do they track real events?

So the “consciousness” is both immaterial and independent of the physical, functioning organism, but at the same time the “consciousness” is dependent on the physical organism in the ways described above. 1. for it’s existence 2. for it’s accuracy

There are too many contradictions in there: consciousness is both immaterial and material? It is both independant of the physical and dependant on it?


I think that when you talk about consciousness’ accuracy in relation to the physical, you simply mean that both interact.

[ Edited: 29 October 2011 09:22 AM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 11:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
Dreadlocks - 29 October 2011 07:08 AM
eucaryote - 28 October 2011 08:48 PM

There is no need to experience the cat’s experience to know that it has one.

srrr - 28 October 2011 03:42 PM

Its not possible for us to be sure that cats are conscious, or even that other perfectly healthy human beings are conscious. We can make an educated guess, based on their behavior, but thats it.

That’s only because you’ve defined this word in the way that you have, as a magical, mysterious, and undetectable thing.  It’s like you are trying to describe your invisible friend whose only salient feature is invisibility.

Dreadlocks - 29 October 2011 07:08 AM

srrr is not saying it is magical. That is your strawman. I believe his position is that experience is fundamental and intrinsic.

You’ve introduced some new terms that I don’t understand in this context. By invoking irrevocable mystery, (Sam’s word), you end the conversation. It’s no explanation, and represents no understanding. You are referring to some “thing” here that you claim to be fundamental yet it cannot be demonstrated. “Consciousness” is just a made up word, like god, that covers our ignorance and allows us to indulge in our intuition.

Dreadlocks - 29 October 2011 07:08 AM

It is absurd to say that experience must be emergent because materialism says so.

Here’s another term that no one bothers to define. “emergence”.  Presumably, cognition is the result of some reaching some high enough level of “complexity”. (another undefined term). FWIW, I don’t think that this kind of argument explains anything either. Again we can see cognitive behavior in single celled organisms. I don’t think emergence holds water.

I don’t think that we will see cognitive behavior in any entity not designed to produce it, regardless of “complexity”.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
srrr - 29 October 2011 09:28 AM
eucaryote - 28 October 2011 08:48 PM

No, we know this from a huge host of research, most of it done on animals.

Remember the “this” we are talking about is consciousness. No research on animals has shown us their consciousness or allowed us to experience what it is like to be a cat/ant/microbe/etc.

I don’t know what “consciousness” means. Until you can define, identify or demonstrate what you are talking about, I think you should stop using the word.

An enormous amount of research has been done on humans, other animals and even single cells that elucidate cognitive feedback processes.

That’s only because you’ve defined this word in the way that you have, as a magical, mysterious, and undetectable thing.  It’s like you are trying to describe your invisible friend whose only salient feature is invisibility.

srrr - 29 October 2011 09:28 AM

Actually i defined consciousness theoretically neutral. I simply refer to the experiences we have, without making any statement about consciousness being physical or not. Noone can deny those experiences exist, unless that person is also going to deny all scientific experiments (science is based on empiricism, which means “to experience”). After all, if one denies that humans have sensory experiences, then one must also deny any knowledge of any experiment which we know about through sensory experience. How do we know particles exist if not through empiricism?

I think you misunderstand science and the role of empiricism in science. We know that subatomic particle exist through experiment and analysis of the data. Empirically, we think we know that the earth is flat and that there is up and down in universe, we can determine that both of those “experiences” are not true. Still the perception persists. Part of the whole idea of science is to test empirical “experiences” for truth,  assuming the truth to be explicable, i.e. the earth is flat or it’s not.

Cognitive processes, and the manner in which the results of those processes are fed back to the organism as representative of the world, are explicable and probably explainable.


So which is it: accept that consciousness exists, or reject all of science?

Well, I think that’s all perfect bullshit.

This “conciousness” is dependent on functioning physical organisms to make itself manifest, is that not true? Also, as you pointed out, the accuracy of the “consciousness” with respect to correctly tracking real events is also dependent on functioning organisms, it that not true?

srrr - 29 October 2011 09:28 AM

You lost me here. “consciousness makes itself manifest”,  “it depends on the functioning physical”, “tracking real events”. It looks like you are off into another dimension here. Replace the word “consciousness” with “electron” or “rock” and you see how nonsensical this has gotten. Do rocks make themself manifest? Do they depend on “the physical”? Do they track real events?

I was pointing out the contradictions in your own arguments.

So the “consciousness” is both immaterial and independent of the physical, functioning organism, but at the same time the “consciousness” is dependent on the physical organism in the ways described above. 1. for it’s existence 2. for it’s accuracy

srrr - 29 October 2011 09:28 AM

There are too many contradictions in there: consciousness is both immaterial and material? It is both independant of the physical and dependant on it?

You seem to think that “consciousness” (your word), is manifest somehow,  both dependent and independent of living organisms. I don’t think that “consciousness”, as you define it in this way, exists at all. I think it’s just a filmy word.

srrr - 29 October 2011 09:28 AM

I think that when you talk about consciousness’ accuracy in relation to the physical, you simply mean that both interact.

No, I’m asking how accurate is your internal representation of the world to the real world? How congruent?

[ Edited: 29 October 2011 12:19 PM by eucaryote]
 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
eucaryote - 29 October 2011 04:12 PM

I don’t know what “consciousness” means. Until you can define, identify or demonstrate what you are talking about, I think you should stop using the word.

I already gave it in my second post that towards you:

This is my definition of consciousness: to have experiences. Examples of experiences are: seeing (like seeing the computer screen), feeling pain, hearing, doing math, being sad, feeling sick, etc. If one has any type of experience, then one is conscious

Please notice that nowhere in the definition does it say that consciousness is physical or not. The definition is neutral and simply refers to our experiences.


Now if you claim to not know what im talking about when i say “seeing the computer screen”, then you can also not know anything about science or the physical world. How do you know about atoms and electrons, if not through having read/heard about them with your senses?

I think you misunderstand science and the role of empiricism in science. We know that subatomic particle exist through experiment and analysis of the data. Empirically, we think we know that the earth is flat and that there is up and down in universe, we can determine that both of those “experiences” are not true. Still the perception persists. Part of the whole idea of science is to test empirical “experiences” for truth,  assuming the truth to be explicable, i.e. the earth is flat or it’s not.

Scientists still use their eyes when they look through a microscope or study data. How else can they know the result of an experiment?


Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

You seem to think that “consciousness” (your word), is manifest somehow,  both dependent and independent of living organisms. I don’t think that “consciousness”, as you define it in this way, exists at all. I think it’s just a filmy word.

I didnt even mention “manifest” and i never said C is both dependent and independent of living things. I think you have me confused with someone else. Im just sticking to the scientific facts and notice that your view is incompatible with them.

[ Edited: 29 October 2011 01:35 PM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
srrr - 29 October 2011 05:27 PM

I think you have me confused with someone else. Im just sticking to the scientific facts and notice that your view is incompatible with them.

How is it do you think that my view is incompatible with facts?

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 02:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
eucaryote - 29 October 2011 05:49 PM
srrr - 29 October 2011 05:27 PM

I think you have me confused with someone else. Im just sticking to the scientific facts and notice that your view is incompatible with them.

How is it do you think that my view is incompatible with facts?

Science tells us that physical objects are reducible to basic physical ingredients. Nothing emerges, its all reducible no matter the configuration. The idea that consciousness emerges is therefor incompatible with the scientific facts.


The idea that consciousness doesnt exist is incompatible with science as a whole, which depends on empiricism (experiences).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2011 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
srrr - 29 October 2011 06:21 PM
eucaryote - 29 October 2011 05:49 PM
srrr - 29 October 2011 05:27 PM

I think you have me confused with someone else. Im just sticking to the scientific facts and notice that your view is incompatible with them.

srrr - 29 October 2011 06:21 PM

[How is it do you think that my view is incompatible with facts?

Science tells us that physical objects are reducible to basic physical ingredients. Nothing emerges, its all reducible no matter the configuration. The idea that consciousness emerges is therefor incompatible with the scientific facts.

I’ve said I don’t understand or agree with the idea of emergence. I’ve also said that I think that what you are calling consciousness is reducible to explicable facts. I don’t see how that is incompatible with science.

The idea that consciousness doesnt exist is incompatible with science as a whole, which depends on empiricism (experiences).

srrr - 29 October 2011 06:21 PM

No. Science is just the story of the real world. It doesn’t require experience. And as I pointed out before much empiricism is inaccurate. The real world continues to exist whether anyone is around to experience or not.  I think that what you are arguing for is a kind solipsism, that your experience is all that you can say exists. Strong solipsism claims that experience brings the world in to existence. It’s all self centered nonsense of course.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2011 03:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2009-07-31
eucaryote - 29 October 2011 03:56 PM
Dreadlocks - 29 October 2011 07:08 AM

srrr is not saying it is magical. That is your strawman. I believe his position is that experience is fundamental and intrinsic.

You’ve introduced some new terms that I don’t understand in this context. By invoking irrevocable mystery, (Sam’s word), you end the conversation. It’s no explanation, and represents no understanding. You are referring to some “thing” here that you claim to be fundamental yet it cannot be demonstrated. “Consciousness” is just a made up word, like god, that covers our ignorance and allows us to indulge in our intuition.

God cries out for an explanation because God is complex. God thinks, loves and hates. His experiencs are rich in content. Because you equate cognition with experience, you believe all experiences are rich in content and complex. We have no reason to believe that all experiences are like that. If electrons experience the electric field around them, I would not expect them to pocess concepts, love, or hate. I would not expect it to have experiences rich in content. That is not to say it could not have very intense experiences. The fact that it experiences may simply be that that is what it is like to be an electron in an electric field. 

As far as not being demonstarable, you have got to be joking. You are having experiences as you read this and you damn well know it.

eucaryote - 29 October 2011 03:56 PM
Dreadlocks - 29 October 2011 07:08 AM

It is absurd to say that experience must be emergent because materialism says so.

Here’s another term that no one bothers to define. “emergence”.  Presumably, cognition is the result of some reaching some high enough level of “complexity”. (another undefined term). FWIW, I don’t think that this kind of argument explains anything either. Again we can see cognitive behavior in single celled organisms. I don’t think emergence holds water.

I don’t think that we will see cognitive behavior in any entity not designed to produce it, regardless of “complexity”.

By saying experience = cognition, you are pulling the old bait and switch. No one sees any mystery or difficulty explaning cognition. The question is why is cognition accompanied by an experience. That is the hard problem of consciousness.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2011 10:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2011-10-18

Yeah he seems to be denying the existence of qualia completely. The Danielle Dennett sort of approach to explaining consciousness.. instead of explaining it just deny its existence! easy enough.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2011 01:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
Dreadlocks - 30 October 2011 07:53 AM
eucaryote - 29 October 2011 03:56 PM
Dreadlocks - 29 October 2011 07:08 AM

srrr is not saying it is magical. That is your strawman. I believe his position is that experience is fundamental and intrinsic.

You’ve introduced some new terms that I don’t understand in this context. By invoking irrevocable mystery, (Sam’s word), you end the conversation. It’s no explanation, and represents no understanding. You are referring to some “thing” here that you claim to be fundamental yet it cannot be demonstrated. “Consciousness” is just a made up word, like god, that covers our ignorance and allows us to indulge in our intuition.

Dreadlocks - 30 October 2011 07:53 AM

God cries out for an explanation because God is complex. God thinks, loves and hates. His experiencs are rich in content.

Hmmm. You do understand that there is no god.

Dreadlocks - 30 October 2011 07:53 AM

Because you equate cognition with experience, you believe all experiences are rich in content and complex.

So you are saying that not all experience is “conscious” experience?

Dreadlocks - 30 October 2011 07:53 AM

We have no reason to believe that all experiences are like that. If electrons experience the electric field around them, I would not expect them to pocess concepts, love, or hate. I would not expect it to have experiences rich in content. That is not to say it could not have very intense experiences. The fact that it experiences may simply be that that is what it is like to be an electron in an electric field.

Again, I’m pretty clear on the idea that rocks, or electrons, demonstrate no evidence of cognition.

Dreadlocks - 30 October 2011 07:53 AM

As far as not being demonstarable, you have got to be joking. You are having experiences as you read this and you damn well know it.

I’ve also been clear on the idea that I’ll accept the concept of “experience” as corollary to cognition. Clearly organisms experience the world as a function of their cognitive processes. This can be tested for independently of reference to the experimenters own experience. (that’s what science is).

Experience is entirely dependent on cognition, yet experience is not equal to cognition, rather experience is the result of cognition.

Experience is the instantaneous refection of the outside world to the organism, as filtered by the cognitive processes and as selected for in relative importance to the organism. Experience is the feedback to the organism regarding the state of the organism in outside world.*

Experience is coded or impressed in the instantaneous physical and chemical biological state of the organism moment to moment. That impression changes moment to moment as the organism gains updated feedback from the outside world.
The content of experience is made up of any number of semi-instantaneous sensations, all macro-molecular in nature. Those sensations are accompanied by any number of semi-instantaneous emotions and feelings, which are also all macro-molecular in nature. All of these consecutive, almost instantaneous impressions of the organism in the outside world, make up the narrative we see as self. The narrative of self can only cast against the background of the outside world, after all. See figure ground reversal.

*Note: every cell in the organism identifies with and is dedicated to maintaining homeostasis of the organism with respect to the outside world. Re-read the story of the slime mold, where individual cells congregate and aggregate to form an organism. A salient feature of experience is that it maintains the identity of the individual and the distinction between self and non-self. This is a sort of immune system that maintains the integrity of the individual over a group of independent cells.

I don’t think that there can be an understanding of experience that is independent of and understanding of how it evolved.

eucaryote - 29 October 2011 03:56 PM
Dreadlocks - 29 October 2011 07:08 AM

It is absurd to say that experience must be emergent because materialism says so.

Here’s another term that no one bothers to define. “emergence”.  Presumably, cognition is the result of some reaching some high enough level of “complexity”. (another undefined term). FWIW, I don’t think that this kind of argument explains anything either. Again we can see cognitive behavior in single celled organisms. I don’t think emergence holds water.

I don’t think that we will see cognitive behavior in any entity not designed to produce it, regardless of “complexity”.

Dreadlocks - 29 October 2011 07:08 AM

By saying experience = cognition, you are pulling the old bait and switch. No one sees any mystery or difficulty explaning cognition. The question is why is cognition accompanied by an experience. That is the hard problem of consciousness.

Read above, I didn’t say that. I’m trying to understand without resorting to the idea that the truth is either intractable or inexplicable.  What you are calling experience is not objectively demonstrable. Subjective experience is very much subject to objective analysis. To call something “the hard problem” is to deliberate avoid objective analysis because we like believing in the extra-ordinary. We’re avoiding the truth because the truth is we are not so much unlike a slime mold. Psuedo-plasmodiums with eye-spots, (I spots) wink

[ Edited: 30 October 2011 01:26 PM by eucaryote]
 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2011 02:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
SoldatHeero - 30 October 2011 02:05 PM

Yeah he seems to be denying the existence of qualia completely. The Danielle Dennett sort of approach to explaining consciousness.. instead of explaining it just deny its existence! easy enough.

Daniel Dennett is taking the subject head on.

Here’s something about “qualia”, a gooey, nonsense word if there ever was one.

Look at the attached spirals.

You think you see blue and green spirals, don’t you? Just as you are sure that you will always see red when you look at red.

Click on this link and see that you are wrong. Both spirals are green.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/24/the-blue-and-the-green/

For pedantry sake, the RGB colors in both spirals are 0, 255, 150. So they are mostly green with a solid splash of blue

This is a circumstance crafted to reveal how our experience of “qualia” is not objective. We are all programmed the same way from deep time so our brains all make the same mistake of perception.

There is no red that is red that is red. There are no qualia.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 35
6
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed