Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Is consciousness quantum?   (io9.com) divider line 130
    More: Interesting, quantum, consciousness, Roger Penrose, historic preservation, anesthesia, classical mechanics  
•       •       •

4611 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Sep 2013 at 9:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-14 10:58:30 PM  

A theory is an assumption based on limited information or knowledge, basically a conjecture. One of the more recent theories that turned out to be completely wrong:

: As peptic ulcers became more common in the 20th century, doctors increasingly linked them to the stress of modern life. during the latter half of the 20th century was, essentially, for patients to take antacids and modify their lifestyle. In the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium  H. pyloricaused peptic ulcer disease, in 2005.

 
2013-09-14 11:03:43 PM  
I plan on being classically unconscious in about 20 minutes.
 
2013-09-14 11:04:25 PM  
Thanks for the TF,  Nefarious
 
2013-09-14 11:11:31 PM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Argument from ignorance -- it might be hard to figure out though we haven't really made a good go at it yet, so it must be magic quantum!

Thermodynamic processes at body temperature and living cell conditions will overwhelm any processes that the quantum woo people are supposing will happen inside a neuron. No quantum tunnelling. Not yours.


Not to mention that the article states that we are "computational".

About as much as cave drawings are "digital".  We are barely procedural at the best of times.  Sure, we've come up with a structure for using rationale in a studious environment, but left to our own devices, most decisions are made on the fly without a lot of forethought.  Any real structure we utilize is learned. Most of our natural processes are very simple, things like association.

The reason we don't understand our brains is that they're so far from logical in their natural processes so as to be alien.  It's the inverse of "Any technology advanced far enough would be indistinguishable from magic."(a principle others have paraphrased above)

Article and original doctor stink of, "What if dog was spelled CAT?!" deep thought born of way too many drugs or too little by far.  Even if those things are as mundane as eating paint chips and suffering severe oxygen deprivation, or being a crack baby.
 
2013-09-14 11:14:46 PM  

jamspoon: A casual Googling of the idea says "No". The main reason being a quantum computer has to be very cold to avoid quantum "noise" disrupting the process.

Nice idea though


In the interview (which was really interesting, btw), this guy claims that some kind of quantum activity has been definitively found in plants in some part of photosynthesis (which I seem to remember reading something about on Fark not too long ago), which would mean that it clearly can happen at warmer temperatures. Maybe the study is flawed or something, but I don't think that humanity is at the point where we can start assuming that we definitively know anything specific about quantum mechanics.
 
2013-09-14 11:18:26 PM  
Everything is quantum if you look closely enough. And if you look even closer, it's analog.
 
2013-09-14 11:20:26 PM  

Nefarious: That cat might know.


Yup.
 
2013-09-14 11:22:25 PM  

arkansized: This is so...I can't even...
Does anyone else find it interesting that the Godhead's name in Hebrew is I AM ?


Wait... are you saying God is POPEYE?
 
2013-09-14 11:26:11 PM  

arkansized: This is so...I can't even...
Does anyone else find it interesting that the Godhead's name in Hebrew is I AM ?


I am that I am.

It is a little-appreciated pun deliberately written into what is now the Bible. It is an answer to the question of when God calls you, you answer "here I am".

Unless you are Noah, in which case you answer "what".
 
2013-09-14 11:29:11 PM  
I really hate it when people misuse the word "quantum".
 
2013-09-14 11:30:56 PM  
An interesting question. My girlfriend has DID and there are at least 13 in there, and one is new since we met. She had a concussion and they took a few days to get sorted out. One is hard core OCD. Six are adult and seven are children who never age. The new one orgasms hard to pain, something that was extremely disconcerting. This new one is also blind because light hurts her eyes so she can't see me. She is linked to a child personality who came out of the concussion way too strong, she is able to overpower the others to get out but she can't know any others exist because none of the children could handle sharing daddy/poppa/papi. The "editing" personality tells me that there are many more "fragments" floating about that may or may not develop into new personalities. They are all linked but only three personalities know of all others and only one of those ever interacts directly with me. Each is a fully formed individual with distinct tastes ans aversions, emotional needs and mannerisms. All existing in one brain. None of them hold direct first person knowledge of the abuse that caused it, instead it is described as more like reading about it in a book. Memories are compartmentalized. One personality, who has no mouth in her self image, is "the keeper of secrets" but what she keeps is unknown even to her. But when something traumatic happens it is like it is put into a vault that she guards.

Is consciousness quantum? It is the only real way to describe what I see in her. She is undiagnosed and even her four grown kids are ignorant of her condition. What I see in her makes me laugh at the Wikipedia articles on personality, consciousness and the like.
 
2013-09-14 11:36:46 PM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-09-14 11:39:26 PM  
Everything is or isn't quantum when you only have a popsci-level of physics understanding. Cat lol. Entanglement derp.
 
2013-09-14 11:41:07 PM  

BolloxReader: An interesting question. My girlfriend has DID and there are at least 13 in there, and one is new since we met. She had a concussion and they took a few days to get sorted out. One is hard core OCD. Six are adult and seven are children who never age. The new one orgasms hard to pain, something that was extremely disconcerting. This new one is also blind because light hurts her eyes so she can't see me. She is linked to a child personality who came out of the concussion way too strong, she is able to overpower the others to get out but she can't know any others exist because none of the children could handle sharing daddy/poppa/papi. The "editing" personality tells me that there are many more "fragments" floating about that may or may not develop into new personalities. They are all linked but only three personalities know of all others and only one of those ever interacts directly with me. Each is a fully formed individual with distinct tastes ans aversions, emotional needs and mannerisms. All existing in one brain. None of them hold direct first person knowledge of the abuse that caused it, instead it is described as more like reading about it in a book. Memories are compartmentalized. One personality, who has no mouth in her self image, is "the keeper of secrets" but what she keeps is unknown even to her. But when something traumatic happens it is like it is put into a vault that she guards.

Is consciousness quantum? It is the only real way to describe what I see in her. She is undiagnosed and even her four grown kids are ignorant of her condition. What I see in her makes me laugh at the Wikipedia articles on personality, consciousness and the like.


Good luck with that
 
2013-09-14 11:51:27 PM  
pressthebuttons.typepad.com
 
2013-09-14 11:53:09 PM  

2wolves: Morchella: Why not. Solace is a quantum thing, evidently.

Spider Robinson fan?


"She" wasn't really a product of quantum computing as I recall...
 
2013-09-14 11:54:07 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: arkansized: This is so...I can't even...
Does anyone else find it interesting that the Godhead's name in Hebrew is I AM ?

Wait... are you saying God is POPEYE?


LOL. No- that would be I YAM.
 
2013-09-15 12:00:43 AM  
I wasn't trying to be flippant.
It's just that self-consciousness might be described but never explained.

In that sense it is like a god, the great unknowable OTHER.
Kind of makes sense that the writer of the Hebrew Bible stood in awe of self-consciousness.

/Laphroig intelligence. I will get over it.
 
2013-09-15 12:01:01 AM  
What is mind? No matter.
What is matter? Never mind.
 
2013-09-15 12:04:30 AM  

BolloxReader: Is consciousness quantum? It is the only real way to describe what I see in her.


I certainly don't want to insult either of you - mental illness is a difficult and troubling problem to deal with - and it sounds like you care deeply for her, so I'll phrase this as gently and as diplomatically as I possibly can: is it possible that that biatch be totes cray?

Because it sounds like that biatch is totes cray-cray  yo.
 
2013-09-15 12:05:46 AM  

jamspoon: A casual Googling of the idea says "No". The main reason being a quantum computer has to be very cold to avoid quantum "noise" disrupting the process.

Nice idea though


This is only because we are trying to measure a deterministic state of quantum information. In a near-absolute zero environemtn, you can probe the quantum states of atoms to determine binary information stored in them. This is a bastardized form of what really goes on because in the act of finding out whether the qbit is 1 or 0, you affect it's quantum states so it no longer behaves as a quantum object in context of "quantum flow." This flow is probabalistic in nature, and cannot be deterministic by nature. We are using it in a deterministic fashion because we only know how to perform computations in a deterministic manner. Therefore we have a need for deterministic measurements of qbits, and that can only be performed in an enviroment that is conducive to letting us measure it without a lot of background noise.

This is where I've understood consciousness to come into play. Take humanity as a whole and notice it behaves according to, more or less, deterministic principles imparted on it from the environment. True consciousness is an awareness that this is happening, and an awareness that you are not subject to deterministic forces and that you act according to your own will specifically because you are aware of the deterministic forces. (This tends to occur without an intellectual knowledge, just an unspeakable psychological awareness and feeling that it occurs.) This is different from what we normally think of being conscious, that is, a state opposed to being asleep. Herein lies the most essential truth of all religions, that "moment of zen" thing. I've come to understand religion is a practice humans have that opens them up to this deeper awareness to deterministic forces, at least if they are serious about seeing them.

Think of it as a machine that suddenly knows it is a machine. If it is aware of this fact and is aware of what it's purpose is and what the inputs for which is was designed are, it can act in opposition to them and do what it wants. It breaks free of it's deterministic qualities. Likewise, this is the same for most all humans where they are little more than walking supercomputers, unaware that they are far more intelligent than their iPhones.

Take of it what you will, but that's my understanding. It's pedantic and obvious, but that's usually the case with profound teachings.
 
2013-09-15 12:25:53 AM  
Hmm, so is there a (peer-reviewdd) paper that outlines this so-called "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" thing?

It's widely thought that the brain processes events at the quantum level (e.g., eyes can be sensitive to single photons), but as far as I know, the best hypothesis of consciousness is Integrated Information Theory (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/5/42/ ).  It would be easy to dismiss this other nonsense, except that Penrose is not a hack.
 
2013-09-15 12:31:05 AM  
Consciousness is a physiological process.  Indeterminateness is not necessary for it.  If it turns out that some sort of "randomness" is beneficial to survival, there is probably enough noise in the system to get suitably random without having to resort to quantum indeterminate states.

I say this as someone who is absolutely theist and believes in the soul.
 
2013-09-15 12:55:51 AM  
Consciousness is a by-product of your complex meat machine.  It's an emergent property and it's a spectrum.  It's natural to want to think you're special, but most people aren't even special enough to realize they're not special.
 
2013-09-15 01:18:58 AM  
I just want to know what flavors my dreams are...
 
2013-09-15 01:19:17 AM  
Pseudoscience at its finest.
 
2013-09-15 01:28:42 AM  

Bathysphere: Physicists and mathematicians have been know to be very spiritual people, and as an atheist, I'm curious to know what knowledge they have that provokes their spirituality.


You're an atheist that believes on souls? Now I've seen everything.
 
2013-09-15 01:31:20 AM  
"quantum" is the new "turbo" was the new "supercharged" was the new "futuristic" was the new "advanced" was the new "new"

its a bullshiat word and isn't even being used correctly, the devices are simply fuzzy processors
 
2013-09-15 01:51:35 AM  
Um, according to well accepted and experimentally proven physics theory, everything is the result of a quantum mechanics.   Everything.  (We haven't quite nailed down the gravitation yet, but are getting closer)   If it is a state of matter or energy, then it is a quantum thing.  The silliness of the article headline is the fault of the article writer for not quite grasping the subject matter, not Roger Penrose.

And this thread is pathetic.


Lady Indica: [www.smbc-comics.com image 540x662]


Except the answer in this case is yes.
 
2013-09-15 03:05:08 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Um, according to well accepted and experimentally proven physics theory, everything is the result of a quantum mechanics.   Everything.  (We haven't quite nailed down the gravitation yet, but are getting closer)   If it is a state of matter or energy, then it is a quantum thing.  The silliness of the article headline is the fault of the article writer for not quite grasping the subject matter, not Roger Penrose.


There's ensemble physics. At a macroscopic scale at the level of a cell, the quantum states of all the atoms in the cell are in a distribution so tightly coupled to the rest of the environment by thermodynamics, that there is little chance to discern quantum states of the cell or its substructures.

The quantum transitions in that ensemble will be so freaking tiny as to be physiologically meaningless and will be dominated by transitions in rotational and vibrational energy, aka heat.

So, yea, if you want to get specific, everything is quantum, but the transitions between molecular quantum states of a specific cell or its substructure is completely dominated by rotation and vibrational state transitions and is incredibly stochastic and distributed on heat energy.

 
2013-09-15 03:07:09 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Um, according to well accepted and experimentally proven physics theory, everything is the result of a quantum mechanics.   Everything.  (We haven't quite nailed down the gravitation yet, but are getting closer)   If it is a state of matter or energy, then it is a quantum thing.  The silliness of the article headline is the fault of the article writer for not quite grasping the subject matter, not Roger Penrose.


Blah, ftfm

There's ensemble physics. At a macroscopic scale at the level of a cell, the quantum states of all the atoms in the cell are in a distribution so tightly coupled to the rest of the environment by thermodynamics, that there is little chance to discern quantum states of the cell or its substructures.

The quantum transitions in that ensemble will be so freaking tiny as to be physiologically meaningless and will be dominated by transitions in rotational and vibrational energy, aka heat.

So, yea, if you want to get specific, everything is quantum, but the transitions between molecular quantum states of a specific cell or its substructure is completely dominated by rotation and vibrational state transitions and is incredibly stochastic and distributed on heat energy.
 
2013-09-15 03:57:28 AM  

FrancoFile: Fraa Jad knows the answer, but it would be tedious to explain it to you.

/obscure?


No dude, Neal Stephenson is not obscure.
 
2013-09-15 04:02:35 AM  

HempHead: A theory is an assumption based on limited information or knowledge, basically a conjecture. One of the more recent theories that turned out to be completely wrong:
: As peptic ulcers became more common in the 20th century, doctors increasingly linked them to the stress of modern life. during the latter half of the 20th century was, essentially, for patients to take antacids and modify their lifestyle. In the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium  H. pyloricaused peptic ulcer disease, in 2005.


Of course, the rise in H. pyloricaused infections was the result of weakened immune systems caused by stress...
 
2013-09-15 04:29:13 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: The quantum transitions in that ensemble will be so freaking tiny as to be physiologically meaningless and will be dominated by transitions in rotational and vibrational energy, aka heat.


Quantum entanglement has already been demonstrated on macro-scale objects at room temperature. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=room-temperature-ent a nglement
So you can stop repeating that quantum effects are "meaningless" at larger scales.  That's very 1980's.

In any case, Penrose isn't discussing a macro-scale object.  He is discussing structures in the brain that are only a few nm wide.  So it is probably not reasonable to arbitrarily hand wave away possible q effects at the scale of light wavelengths, just because you don't like it.  (Time may show Penrose is wrong this once, but it will take more than a dismissive handwave and some incorrect statements about quantum physics to make that case.)

/As a side note, one should probably be extra circumspect before saying one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists alive today is presenting an "Argument from ignorance".
 
2013-09-15 04:55:59 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: The quantum transitions in that ensemble will be so freaking tiny as to be physiologically meaningless and will be dominated by transitions in rotational and vibrational energy, aka heat.

Quantum entanglement has already been demonstrated on macro-scale objects at room temperature. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=room-temperature-ent a nglement
So you can stop repeating that quantum effects are "meaningless" at larger scales.  That's very 1980's.

In any case, Penrose isn't discussing a macro-scale object.  He is discussing structures in the brain that are only a few nm wide.  So it is probably not reasonable to arbitrarily hand wave away possible q effects at the scale of light wavelengths, just because you don't like it.  (Time may show Penrose is wrong this once, but it will take more than a dismissive handwave and some incorrect statements about quantum physics to make that case.)

/As a side note, one should probably be extra circumspect before saying one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists alive today is presenting an "Argument from ignorance".


Except that those same "microtubules in the brain" mentioned in TFA are part of neuron cells, which means that every life form more complicated than a sponge has them. They are in no way unique to humans, or even mammals or vertebrates. In fact, jellyfish have them. I don't see anyone calling these things conscious.

t0.gstatic.com

I have no problem with the hypothesis that there may be quantum elements involved in neural functioning, as quantum effects in biology have already been demonstrated. However, everything that makes humans different from other animals and permits us to have more elaborate cognition happens at the macroscale, because the microscale structures mentioned in the article would necessarily be shared in basic function with every other animal that has neurons.

So this in essence reduces the idea of consciousness being due to quantum effects down to the nearly trivial statement that consciousness is due to us having neurons. I think it's interesting to study whether neuron functions have quantum interactions - but anyone who wants to start bringing up consciousness as a result in a causal fashion is seriously indulging in woo. This looks to me like a clear case of a very smart man who is an expert in his field making a basic error about a topic about which he is most definitely not an expert.
 
2013-09-15 05:06:39 AM  

KiltedBastich: This looks to me like a clear case of a very smart man who is an expert in his field making a basic error about a topic about which he is most definitely not an expert.


pathological science
 
2013-09-15 05:09:03 AM  

Bathysphere: Physicists and mathematicians have been know to be very spiritual people, and as an atheist, I'm curious to know what knowledge they have that provokes their spirituality.


They get caught up in the coincidences
 
2013-09-15 05:11:34 AM  

KiltedBastich: Except that those same "microtubules in the brain" mentioned in TFA are part of neuron cells, which means that every life form more complicated than a sponge has them. They are in no way unique to humans, or even mammals or vertebrates. In fact, jellyfish have them. I don't see anyone calling these things conscious.



Okay, let's use your argument on something other than microtubules....

Humans have neurons, and are conscious.  Jellyfish have neurons but are not conscious.  Therefore neurons must not be involved in human consciousness.

I don't think that last statement is a valid leap.  :)
 
2013-09-15 05:41:27 AM  
Is i09 stupid?

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-15 07:50:32 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Humans have neurons, and are conscious. Jellyfish have neurons but are not conscious. Therefore the presence of neurons must not be involved in human is not sufficient to produce consciousness.

I don't think that last statement is a valid leap. :)


FTFY

KiltedBastich: I have no problem with the hypothesis that there may be quantum elements involved in neural functioning, as quantum effects in biology have already been demonstrated. However, everything that makes humans different from other animals and permits us to have more elaborate cognition happens at the macroscale, because the microscale structures mentioned in the article would necessarily be shared in basic function with every other animal that has neurons.

So this in essence reduces the idea of consciousness being due to quantum effects down to the nearly trivial statement that consciousness is due to us having neurons. I think it's interesting to study whether neuron functions have quantum interactions - but anyone who wants to start bringing up consciousness as a result in a causal fashion is seriously indulging in woo. This looks to me like a clear case of a very smart man who is an expert in his field making a basic error about a topic about which he is most definitely not an expert.


This is probably a better plain-text refutation than what I was going to come up with. My go-to explanation more involves the fact that the size of a cell is pretty solidly in the regime where the probabilistic nature of electrons in QM converges towards the deterministic (due to the fact that neurons firing is an aggregate effect.) In CMOS, you start to have problems related to quantum tunneling when your gate oxide drops below about 50nm - hence the reason for high-k dielectrics in the last few generations of microprocessors. A quick google search reveals that the average dendrite is on the order of 10 um wide and dozens to hundreds of microns long. Moreover, we deal with QM stuff in electronics all the time - it's called "shot noise," and it sure as shiat doesn't mean your circuit is conscious.
 
2013-09-15 07:55:01 AM  
FTFA: The theory presents a new kind of wave function collapse that occurs in isolation...

Stopped reading right there. There is no such thing as wave function collapse (it's a handy approximation that works really well when your "measuring" instrument is many orders of magnitude larger than your "measured" system).

Amateur Tip: if your pet theory depends in an essential way on "wave function collapse", it's already wrong.
 
2013-09-15 07:58:12 AM  

Kit Fister: Nefarious: That cat might know.

the cat is both in and not in aruba.

Also, what if our physical beings are just an elaborate prison designed to trap energy beings in an alternate reality, and people who die are just being paroled from their sentences?


So what are parole violations in that regard?
 
2013-09-15 08:10:07 AM  

jamspoon: A casual Googling of the idea says "No". The main reason being a quantum computer has to be very cold to avoid quantum "noise" disrupting the process.


DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Thermodynamic processes at body temperature and living cell conditions will overwhelm any processes that the quantum woo people are supposing will happen inside a neuron.


Actually... that's about the only part of this wacko theory that does make sense. Quantum processes are turning up in some surprising places. Baryogenesis mentioned photosynthesis, and they have also been implicated in how some birds navigate using tiny ferrous particles in the eye, and potentially in the sense of smell. Quantum computing researchers are actually very interested in how these natural systems manage to sustain their quantum states for so long (relatively speaking) in the presence of so much environmental noise.

To be clear, I'm not in any way defending this nutty theory, for the very good reason that Baryogenesis (again) already mentioned: it doesn't matter how much quantum you throw at a physical process, it's still a physical process, and there's nothing in currently described physical processes that remotely describes what we imagine "consciousness" to be. Whatever consciousness is, describing it is going to take a physical theory that is as radically different from quantum physics as quantum physics is from classical physics. We're missing an entire conceptual leap. To suggest otherwise is not even wrong.
 
2013-09-15 08:16:56 AM  

Baryogenesis: Seriously. I thought it might be an article about quantum effects driving certain important brain processes like the quantum effects that are part of photosynthesis. But no, it was total drivel.

The first red flag went up when the author talked about wave function collapse as if it were a "thing" and that was quickly followed by "non physical". There's nothing "non physical" about quantum mechanics, people!


FWIW I actually have a hypothesis about how consciousness might work that is consistent with what little we know about it (e.g. that it doesn't appear to operate in the absence of a working brain; that it is limited in capability and localized in space and time). It exploits quantum effects but neither (1) suggests that quantum effects by themselves are enough of an explanation nor (b) suggests that quantum effects are in any way non-physical or not described incredibly well by existing quantum theory.

However, I'm reluctant to post it here because the last time I mentioned it, numerous Farkers completely misread it as advocating some kind of non-physical quantum woo and it got very ugly...
 
2013-09-15 08:26:29 AM  
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-09-15 08:51:52 AM  
Ladies and gentlemen, put your hands together and let's hear it for  quantum phenomenon!

Great band name.
 
2013-09-15 08:59:58 AM  

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Ladies and gentlemen, put your hands together and let's hear it for  quantum phenomenon!

Great band name.


go for plural. Quantum Phenomena sounds better.
 
2013-09-15 09:54:23 AM  

derpy: yagottabefarkinkiddinme: Ladies and gentlemen, put your hands together and let's hear it for  quantum phenomenon!

Great band name.

go for plural. Quantum Phenomena sounds better.


By an odd coincidence, my bluegrass/grunge crossover band is called Spontaneous Waveform Collapse.
 
2013-09-15 10:15:39 AM  

jamspoon: A casual Googling of the idea says "No". The main reason being a quantum computer has to be very cold to avoid quantum "noise" disrupting the process.

Nice idea though


Good thing the brain doesn't really function anything at all like any computer we've build then.  When you add 2 + 2 in your mind, the processes you go through do not have any relation to this:
izatxamir.files.wordpress.com

Given the complexities of conscious thought, it seems inevitable that we will have to look beyond classical models to define it.

/off to read the Orch OR paper
 
2013-09-15 10:37:03 AM  

DamnYankees: Bathysphere: Physicists and mathematicians have been know to be very spiritual people, and as an atheist, I'm curious to know what knowledge they have that provokes their spirituality.

Scientists, especially physicists, are WAY LESS spiritual than other people.


You're kidding, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report