Who can say, without a doubt, that I am not a dream?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



allofyousuckkk
We dream some really weird things, but how do I know that my life isn't one giant dream, thought up by a comatose patient?

and in turn,

that all our dreams aren't a reality, somewhere.

or if I were a dream right now, would I be considered reality?

dadudemon
There's also the idea that we are 7 dimensional beings, being projected by a "source" onto a 4 dimensional existence...just the same as we cast shadows...so does this other "source" and we are the effect of this "source" casting a shadow through four dimensions from this 7 dimensional "source".


Weird, I know. It's possible.


It's like The Matrix, on steroids.

Scythe
Yeah, some people use drugs.

inimalist
and how

LDHZenkai
You might very well be a dream. Which leads to my philosophy of enjoying life. No need to worry about anything. Why you ask? Because either it's not real and just an illusion....or it's real and you're going to die. Enjoy it while you can.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
We dream some really weird things, but how do I know that my life isn't one giant dream, thought up by a comatose patient?

and in turn,

that all our dreams aren't a reality, somewhere.

or if I were a dream right now, would I be considered reality?

Because when you are in a dream, if you say am I in a dream, you know you are in a dream.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because when you are in a dream, if you say am I in a dream, you know you are in a dream.

Sometimes.

Mindship
Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
We dream some really weird things, but how do I know that my life isn't one giant dream, thought up by a comatose patient?
"Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream..."
With regard to religion/mysticism, the Dream metaphor is thousands of years old, though I don't think anyone's ever called God comatose before...yet that would explain a lot. You may've hit on something there. wink

and in turn,

that all our dreams aren't a reality, somewhere.Modern empirical science would define that "somewhere" as your brain.

or if I were a dream right now, would I be considered reality? I find the common distinction of "dreams" on the one hand and "reality" on the other misleading. Dreams are real, just not the same kind of reality as what you experience when awake. Next time you're dreaming, pay attention. Note colors, shadows, movement; listen to when someone is speaking to you; note how something feels if you grasp an object and lift it.

Quark_666
I had a dream that felt more real then my real life. I don't do drugs and I'm not trying to promote some religion or philosophy by saying this....but there is really no way of knowing whether you are in a dream.

So for example, Shaky said that "when you are in a dream, if you say am I in a dream, you know you are in a dream." I would like to add that if you say you are in real life, then you know you are in real life. You can make yourself believe you are truly living or that you are dreaming, and it calls into question what dreaming and living are anyway. Is there even a difference?

lord xyz
Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
We dream some really weird things, but how do I know that my life isn't one giant dream, thought up by a comatose patient?

and in turn,

that all our dreams aren't a reality, somewhere.

or if I were a dream right now, would I be considered reality? Where do you draw the line between dream and reality?

Kinkin
Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
We dream some really weird things, but how do I know that my life isn't one giant dream, thought up by a comatose patient?

and in turn,

that all our dreams aren't a reality, somewhere.

or if I were a dream right now, would I be considered reality? I ask my mum shit like this to freak her out, always funny.

If I was a dream it would be better for me.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because when you are in a dream, if you say am I in a dream, you know you are in a dream.

sudo tell is this a dream?

no expression

Kinkin
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because when you are in a dream, if you say am I in a dream, you know you are in a dream.

Not always, I said that in a dream once, felt so real, woke up thought it happened. I had to double check it was real.

Mindship
Originally posted by Kinkin
Not always, I said that in a dream once, felt so real, woke up thought it happened. I had to double check it was real. Beware the False Awakening. confused wink

http://psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/dreaming_and_false_awakenings

Symmetric Chaos
There's a guy in Sandman who get's cursed to keep having false awakenings every few seconds for the rest of his life.

Mindship
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's a guy in Sandman who get's cursed to keep having false awakenings every few seconds for the rest of his life. You mean Morpheus? I never read Sandman, but I just googled it to get an idea...and gave myself a V8 slap for missing out.

In any event, it begs the question: if you suspect you're dreaming, but can't wake up, how do you know if you are dreaming?

Bardock42
No. Morpheus is the guy that does the cursing. Morpheus is the name of "Dream of the Endless", which is the Sandman (i.e Master of Dreams) the title refers to. He curses a guy who imprisioned him for years with having constant nightmares he awakes of just to find that he is in another nightmare. Had it kinda coming though. Good comic either way, should check it out.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Mindship
You mean Morpheus? I never read Sandman, but I just googled it to get an idea...and gave myself a V8 slap for missing out.

Well Morpheus was the one doing the cursing. It's a pretty awful punishment.

Probably my favorite take on dream vs reality is probably an episode of Stargate SG-1 where Teal'c keeps switching between a hallucination (complete with all the classic cliches) and what the viewer knows is reality. In the end he finds out that both worlds are hallucinations, though one does happen to be based more in reality.

Originally posted by Mindship
In any event, it begs the question: if you suspect you're dreaming, but can't wake up, how do you know if you are dreaming?

I usually have a sense of immobility when I'm dreaming but that's not really sufficient except that it produces the feeling of "this isn't real" that makes anything that happens disturbing no matter what the content might be.

Mindship
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well Morpheus was the one doing the cursing. It's a pretty awful punishment.

Probably my favorite take on dream vs reality is probably an episode of Stargate SG-1 where Teal'c keeps switching between a hallucination (complete with all the classic cliches) and what the viewer knows is reality. In the end he finds out that both worlds are hallucinations, though one does happen to be based more in reality.



I usually have a sense of immobility when I'm dreaming but that's not really sufficient except that it produces the feeling of "this isn't real" that makes anything that happens disturbing no matter what the content might be.
The feeling that something isn't right.

I don't have any particular triggers, but generally, the more lucid I am, the better I can reference the waking world. But this isn't sufficient either, because everything about me is still in the dream, everything I do, think and remember. The only test, really, is to wake up.

Kostabot
Originally posted by dadudemon
There's also the idea that we are 7 dimensional beings, being projected by a "source" onto a 4 dimensional existence...just the same as we cast shadows...so does this other "source" and we are the effect of this "source" casting a shadow through four dimensions from this 7 dimensional "source".


Weird, I know. It's possible.


It's like The Matrix, on steroids.

Damn dude.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Probably my favorite take on dream vs reality is probably an episode of Stargate SG-1 where Teal'c keeps switching between a hallucination (complete with all the classic cliches) and what the viewer knows is reality. In the end he finds out that both worlds are hallucinations, though one does happen to be based more in reality.

I'm remembering this X-Files eppisode where Moulder (?) is trapped in this fungus that is kilometers in size, which sends him into crazy hallucination world.

lol, has anyone seen requiem for a dream?

leonheartmm
Originally posted by dadudemon
There's also the idea that we are 7 dimensional beings, being projected by a "source" onto a 4 dimensional existence...just the same as we cast shadows...so does this other "source" and we are the effect of this "source" casting a shadow through four dimensions from this 7 dimensional "source".


and to answer your question. NO1 can claim that. but i wud say that there isnt much of a difference in the present whether your a dream or real. you are you, i.e. what you FEAL to be you either way, and you and every1 around you is just as real no matter what. ofcourse, u wud have a probelm if this was YOUR dream.

Weird, I know. It's possible.


It's like The Matrix, on steroids.

more like dadudemon on acid. or datura!

Deja~vu
A dream in whoes eye? Hmm Are we?

leonheartmm
no1 can say without a doubt. but the question is, what is the difference between a dream and reality if every facet of what you consider REAL {including the existance of other self aware/concious individuals like yourself in your surrounding} exists in both either way. there are no differences between the two UNLESS it is YOU who is dreaming everything up, instead of you being a part of sum1 else's dream}

Deja~vu
Maybe life is just a dream and the after life is reality.

Martian_mind
Who gives a shit? The world you percieve to interact with is your reality,and as your consciousness is the only one you can guarantee exists, it's reality is the only reality.

inimalist
however, one cannot know their own consciousness exists wink

Martian_mind
Originally posted by inimalist
however, one cannot know their own consciousness exists wink

Yes they can.I'll show you.


"I exist"

That was easy.

inimalist
Originally posted by Martian_mind
Yes they can.I'll show you.


"I exist"

That was easy.

lol, you haven't shown me anything

I have no evidence the computer I am sitting at is not a byproduct of some "brain-in-vat" type scenario, let alone that you are a thinking and acting individual.

Also, you haven't even began to address my point. Sure, one can affirm to themselves that they exist, but what is it that is doing the affirming, and what is it really that is being affirmed.

The conscious "you" does not have a discernible place in the brain, and can be broken down into millions of component parts. Consciousness may in fact by an illusion based upon the action of millions of interconnected cells. You, in fact, might not actually be you, but rather a community of single celled organisms reacting to incoming stimuli.

Martian_mind
But i still have a sense of personal identity,and thus i exist.


More then the sum of my parts,so to speak.

Anyway,I did prove a point. I am certain i exist,and nothing you say will convince me otherwise.

inimalist
lol, wow, guess I've been told roll eyes (sarcastic)

EDIT: And I'm serious for a minute: Why would you post on a discussion forum if you are clearly uninterested in discussing things?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
... And I'm serious for a minute: Why would you post on a discussion forum if you are clearly uninterested in discussing things?

That question is the 800 LB gorilla in the room. wink

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That question is the 800 LB gorilla in the room. wink

lol, I mean, I guess "who am I to question anyone", but I always figured people spent their time posting in and reading the forum because they wanted some back and forth over ideas.

Its disheartening to see someone just come back with "so there, I'm going to put my fingers in my ears"

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I mean, I guess "who am I to question anyone", but I always figured people spent their time posting in and reading the forum because they wanted some back and forth over ideas.

Its disheartening to see someone just come back with "so there, I'm going to put my fingers in my ears"

It happens all the time on the religious forum... but I'm getting better. laughing out loud

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It happens all the time on the religious forum... but I'm getting better. laughing out loud

that was a part of the surprise, I guess. I'm sure we are all guilty of dismissing others' points from time to time, but the philosophy forum has low enough traffic that normally you can assume people would rather post huge amounts of crap back and forth than just want to make their point.

I blame the education system, and will now waste 8000 characters writing an essay specifically for forum consumption about the matter, and maybe get pissed about the issue in totally non-related threads, lol indeed!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
that was a part of the surprise, I guess. I'm sure we are all guilty of dismissing others' points from time to time, but the philosophy forum has low enough traffic that normally you can assume people would rather post huge amounts of crap back and forth than just want to make their point.

I blame the education system, and will now waste 8000 characters writing an essay specifically for forum consumption about the matter, and maybe get pissed about the issue in totally non-related threads, lol indeed!

I look forward to not reading it. jk. wink

inimalist
your lips say jk, but I know in your heart, it is tl:dr

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
your lips say jk, but I know in your heart, it is tl:dr

Wow, I never knew what that (tl:dr) meant, so I looked it up. I'm going to have to use it now. big grin

inimalist
with knowledge comes POWER

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
with knowledge comes POWER

With power comes corruption.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
With power comes corruption.

meh, corruption is really only relative to whichever position is privileged as good. In this case, ignorance apparently.

Bardock42
And where does the dark side fit into all this?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
meh, corruption is really only relative to whichever position is privileged as good. In this case, ignorance apparently.

That creates an interesting circle.

inimalist
Originally posted by Bardock42
And where does the dark side fit into all this?

to push the analogy, education

unless you want to go with the veiled sexual reference about fitting the "dark" in somewhere...

Though, where was post-modernism in Star Wars?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That creates an interesting circle.

I don't see the circle...

evil people gain power and intelligence, good people stay dumb and weak?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
to push the analogy, education

unless you want to go with the veiled sexual reference about fitting the "dark" in somewhere...

Though, where was post-modernism in Star Wars?



I don't see the circle...

evil people gain power and intelligence, good people stay dumb and weak?

No. All people are both good and evil.

Power allows people to follow an evil path. This becomes apparent to the common people who then do not trust the powerful. In turn they begin to truth the people out of power, and then replace the corrupted people in power with the non-corrupt people. In time these new people become corrupt, and the cycle begins again.

Just look at the French revolution.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. All people are both good and evil.

Power allows people to follow an evil path. This becomes apparent to the common people who then do not trust the powerful. In turn they begin to truth the people out of power, and then replace the corrupted people in power with the non-corrupt people. In time these new people become corrupt, and the cycle begins again.

I get you

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just look at the French revolution.

A power vacuum was filled by those most willing to do the most barbaric things?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. All people are both good and evil.

Power allows people to follow an evil path. This becomes apparent to the common people who then do not trust the powerful. In turn they begin to truth the people out of power, and then replace the corrupted people in power with the non-corrupt people. In time these new people become corrupt, and the cycle begins again.

Those without power can't be corrupt or evil?

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those without power can't be corrupt or evil?

thats my thought on his remark about the French revolution

all revolutions play out differently, but I suspect that it is corrupt people who are able to best exploit a power vacuum for their own ends.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those without power can't be corrupt or evil?

I was playing with the ball I was given.


Originally posted by inimalist
meh, corruption is really only relative to whichever position is privileged as good. In this case, ignorance apparently.

Martian_mind
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I mean, I guess "who am I to question anyone", but I always figured people spent their time posting in and reading the forum because they wanted some back and forth over ideas.

Its disheartening to see someone just come back with "so there, I'm going to put my fingers in my ears"


I didn't really see the back and forth we could have.I'm not going to sit here and try to argue what a consciosness is with you,because frankly the ignorance you've been discussing means i already have my own definition,and as my own personal philosophy shows I'll stick by my definition,rather then deal with a bunch of hypotheticals that would fail to dissuade me from belives,because they'd have to make me doubt my own consciousness,and thus all of existence,which frankly i feel is beyond you.

Have at it,if you want.

Deja~vu
The French were forced to get back in sink with the rest of the world to get back in line with what works.

I just love the story of the French Revolution. They looked at the New World and tried it for themselves, but didn't do it quite right and it back fired on em. They became evil, blood thirsty and revelers. They changed the laws and even went so far as to change the calender because it was based on religion and the institutions that they hated., But they did make a point. Pinned up atrocities made a very good point.

inimalist
Originally posted by Martian_mind
I didn't really see the back and forth we could have.I'm not going to sit here and try to argue what a consciosness is with you,because frankly the ignorance you've been discussing means i already have my own definition,and as my own personal philosophy shows I'll stick by my definition,rather then deal with a bunch of hypotheticals that would fail to dissuade me from belives,because they'd have to make me doubt my own consciousness,and thus all of existence,which frankly i feel is beyond you.

Have at it,if you want.

but why would you post your ideas in a forum if you didn't want to discuss them?

EDIT:

also, http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/Mind/?view=usa&ci=9780192805850

Martian_mind
Originally posted by inimalist
but why would you post your ideas in a forum if you didn't want to discuss them?

EDIT:

also, http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/Mind/?view=usa&ci=9780192805850

I never said i didn't want to discuss them.I just said i doubt you will be able to dissuade me from believing in them.

Mindship
Originally posted by Martian_mind
"I exist" "I" is an illusion, a symbolic construct for convenient reference in a society of like beings. Spend some time trying to quiet your mental chatter; you won't be able to because "I" has no substance therefore no real control (not that any of us do, please note). What you'll notice instead is a loosely organized collective of "agents" (for lack of a better word), each with its own agenda, will, inner dialogue and emotion-set, all together masquerading as a singular "I."

"I exist" would be more correctly stated as "The illusion of 'I' exists."


smokin'

Cartesian Doubt
Originally posted by Mindship
"I" is an illusion, a symbolic construct for convenient reference in a society of like beings. Spend some time trying to quiet your mental chatter; you won't be able to because "I" has no substance therefore no real control (not that any of us do, please note). What you'll notice instead is a loosely organized collective of "agents" (for lack of a better word), each with its own agenda, will, inner dialogue and emotion-set, all together masquerading as a singular "I."

"I exist" would be more correctly stated as "The illusion of 'I' exists."


smokin'

Are you Wittgenstein ?

Cartesian Doubt
Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
We dream some really weird things, but how do I know that my life isn't one giant dream, thought up by a comatose patient?


G.E. Moore would disagree with you.

"I have hands" therefore external world skepticism is Bullshit etc.

I give you the magic of the "G.E. Moore shift"; as close as we will probably ever get to rejecting external world skepticism.

https://vlebb.leeds.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1& amp;url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flaunch
er%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_14430_1%26url%3D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand

Mindship
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Are you Wittgenstein ? You mean reincarnated? I don't think so. I was kind of hoping for Hegel.

Cartesian Doubt
Originally posted by Mindship
You mean reincarnated? I don't think so. I was kind of hoping for Hegel.

Don't know much about Hegel, other than the fact that his Idealism dominated Philosophy right up until G.E. Moore, Bertie Russel and co took it apart.

inimalist
Originally posted by Martian_mind
I never said i didn't want to discuss them.I just said i doubt you will be able to dissuade me from believing in them.

so you are admittedly close minded?

why do you assume I want to convince you of anything. I'm interested in the discussion. It would be really boring if everyone just agreed with me.

Mindship
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Don't know much about Hegel, other than the fact that his Idealism dominated Philosophy right up until G.E. Moore, Bertie Russel and co took it apart. Only cuz they weren't able to debate him on KMC.

inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship
"I" is an illusion, a symbolic construct for convenient reference in a society of like beings. Spend some time trying to quiet your mental chatter; you won't be able to because "I" has no substance therefore no real control (not that any of us do, please note). What you'll notice instead is a loosely organized collective of "agents" (for lack of a better word), each with its own agenda, will, inner dialogue and emotion-set, all together masquerading as a singular "I."

"I exist" would be more correctly stated as "The illusion of 'I' exists."


smokin'

wow...

something about consciousness we agree about smile

Mindship
Originally posted by inimalist
wow...

something about consciousness we agree about smile Ripley's should be informed, methinks.

Actually, though I can't recall any specific studies (it's been a while), there is quite a bit of agreement between what ancient mystical texts and modern perceptual research have to say about the ego.

inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship
Ripley's should be informed, methinks.

Actually, though I can't recall any specific studies (it's been a while), there is quite a bit of agreement between what ancient mystical texts and modern perceptual research have to say about the ego.

Sam Harris talks about it, and I've even heard the schema/exemplar theory of object classification put into platonic terms.

The west got a lot of stuff right with its philosophy, the mind, however, is something they did not. LOL, and I'm sure there is probably more agreement between us than disagreement wink

Mindship
Originally posted by inimalist
Sam Harris talks about it, and I've even heard the schema/exemplar theory of object classification put into platonic terms.

The west got a lot of stuff right with its philosophy, the mind, however, is something they did not. LOL, and I'm sure there is probably more agreement between us than disagreement wink Yeah, but where's the fun in that...

inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship
Yeah, but where's the fun in that...

avast me harty!

have at thee then

en garde!

Mindship
Originally posted by inimalist
avast me harty!

have at thee then

en garde!

Well, I didn't mean right this second...

Actually, I've been eyeing your thread on the Iranian leader's UN speech and the US's reaction. Haven't sorted out my feelings yet on that one (and I don't wanna mix threads), except to say the US walking out indeed was not the smartest nor most honorable move (damn, we agree again).

inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship
Well, I didn't mean right this second...

Actually, I've been eyeing your thread on the Iranian leader's UN speech and the US's reaction. Haven't sorted out my feelings yet on that one (and I don't wanna mix threads), except to say the US walking out indeed was not the smartest nor most honorable move (damn, we agree again).

ha, thanks! I'm glad we are on the same page on that one

really, I'm more happy people took the time to read it. I sort of got really ticked at the whole issue, hence the huge thread. But ya, I look forward to your input.

THE JLRTENJAC
Could be similar to Koholint Island in Link's Awakening, where we are a dream of some supreme being. Yet take on lives of our own on the plane of reality.

Mindship
Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Could be similar to Koholint Island in Link's Awakening, where we are a dream of some supreme being. Yet take on lives of our own on the plane of reality. What I especially like about the dream metaphor is that lucid dreaming gives, perhaps, some idea of what it's like to be 'enlightened'. The more lucid you are, the more you go from being a persona to the Dreamer.

Cartesian Doubt
Using Language to prove that the external world exists. For words to have correct meanings they must have some connection to the external world; Wittgenstien calls this the picture representation. As words are representations of objects, we necessarily require objects to be referred to. If the words do not represent anything that exists in the world, then language meaning is unattainable therefore meaningless. To propose a meaningful/valid Cartesian skeptical argument; i.e. I doubt whether my senses are true, as I could be dreaming, one must have clear understanding of the words "doubt", "senses", "Truth" etc. However without an external world, appropriate meaning of these words cannot be attained. Therefore in the hypothetical possible world, (where the external world is a dream) the words no longer make reference to anything. The argument is constructed with words that have no meaning. Without any meaning the proposition breaks down. One might as well be constructing a sentence with words that don't exist. However, we can construct a valid arguemnt arguing for the external world, as the external world is necessary for language to work. Wittegenstien proposes that as we can produce meanigful propositions as arguments when the words symbolise, represent objects in an external world. This doesn't mean we can prove that the external world exists, however it does show us that we cannot meanigfully debate it with Language, for without and external world there cannot be language.

leonheartmm
^or words cud be one of the things you dreamed up to. the concept of DREAM cud rise from contrasting between what we PERCIEVE to be real and what{but fail to see it as perception and associate absolute reality with it} and what we recognise, cud be false but perceptually real. in short, they are both dreams and part of our own creation, only, we see one and not the other.

Cartesian Doubt
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^or words cud be one of the things you dreamed up to. the concept of DREAM cud rise from contrasting between what we PERCIEVE to be real and what{but fail to see it as perception and associate absolute reality with it} and what we recognise, cud be false but perceptually real. in short, they are both dreams and part of our own creation, only, we see one and not the other.

As I mentioned previously the language response doesn't prove that there is a "true" realist world, but it shows us that the world needs to be true for us to debate it. Ok take this into consideration do you agree that the external world in the "Brain In Vat", "dream" scenario is necessarily false, i.e. by its very nature it is not "true".I.e. our sensory experiences that allow us to conclude there to be an objective external reality must be necessarily faulty in some way? If it wasn't faulty we would be able to see its true nature, no longer percieving the "false" dream. Therefore the what we percieve as objective enitys, in the external world are also false (Not what they truely are)? A meaningful linguistic representation of the world (What langauge supposedly is) requires this process to be "correct"; representation by definition requires an objective "fact" to represent. If you aren't reprsesenting something objective then there can be no representation. I.e. The word "Hand" is meangless as there is no objective entity it is representing. If there is no objective entitys then the word "hand" can mean anything, making it meaningless. The same goes for every other word. Therefore in saying that there is no object external world, you are consequently saying that there can be no objective, meaningful reprsentation. Therefore in the external world hypothetical scenario, you are simulatneously claiming that language is meaningless. Dream language is a false representation, and therefore meaningless. Therefore your argument about the anti-realist nature of reality, is also meaningless. However I do agree that the BIV scenario does seem to transcend language, however you cannot meanigfully debate it with langauge, as language requires a Realist objective world.

Laura Palmer
Yeah, actually I am pretty sure I'm in a dream at the moment. Can wake up nao plz?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.