nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 11, 2009 2:48:22 GMT -5
What do you think?
Do we inherently have the ability to choose for ourselves the course of our futures and the actions that we take, and if so, from where does this ability arise?
If not, then how do we have this "illusion" of being in control?
Personally, I really am not sure. A part of me wants to believe that I am in control, that my feelings of self-awareness and decision making are not just illusions, but I inevitably come to the question of where does this ability come from? I can't seem to reconcile this problem without invoking something supernatural, not god perhaps, but a soul of some sort, that doesn't follow the normal order of the universe, since there are no known physical mechanics that can lead to true free will (decision making based on previous experiences yes, but free will?), and you can call god of the gaps on me if you will, but I just can't see how our limited biological brains would exploit some physical process still unknown.
Then comes the actual limited insights that physics does grant. Starting with just basic Newtonian/Einsteinian mechanics it falls out that all particles paths are fairly predetermined, even if there is far too much information to actually calculate it, the motion is not random, if we had the computing power and knowledge, we could predict anything. Now obviously the randomness introduced through Quantum mechanics and the inherent uncertainty changes things, but still doesn't show a path from which free will would arise.
Furthermore, special relativity seems to suggest that all times exist always, and don't pop into and out of existence. Briefly, the speed at which you are moving relative to everything else will cause a different set of events to be simultaneous as compared to a different person moving and a different speed, and when you change speeds this can cause events that were supposedly happening previous to what were last occurring at your time to now be occurring simultaneous to your current time (meaning that events would change order, however this would be impossible to observe or be able to use to change anything due to the speed of light restriction, so it doesn't violate causality...read "Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene for this to be explained far more elegantly than I have the time or ability). But this roughly means that someone far enough away or moving at a large enough speed shifting speed can literally jump from different "lines" of simultaneity. So basically at one speed Obama is taking the oath of office, and at another speed later George Washington is crossing the Delaware. Basically this is to illustrate what I meant by all times always existing. And this would mean that future events have already happened to for a person moving at a certain speed, again seeming to think the decisions are either already made, or aren't really decisions at all.
So physics seems to suggest, though far from prove, that free will doesn't exist as we would believe and that our actions are predetermined, though in an extremely complicated way, in that all of our actions are decided by our previous experiences, which were predetermined by still other previous experiences of both ourself and others (and that there is some feedback in our own mind of creating imaginary experiences and thinking upon these experiences). However, I can't bring myself to believe this is the case either, as there seems to be an inherent FEELING that I can decide spontaneously. While this argument is weak, it just seems unshakable. So I'm curious as to what others think, and hope to perhaps gain some insight.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Apr 11, 2009 3:18:53 GMT -5
The concept of free will and the concept of personal responsibility are socially intertwined. If we do in fact have free will, then our actions are chosen, and we are responsible for the outcome and consequences thereof. If, however, some other force is responsible for our actions, whether internal or external makes no difference, then accountability is meaningless and inapplicable. This, then, brings about the concepts of motivation, desire, reward, empathy, morality, personality, the fugue state, identity, awareness, psychosis, and essentially any and all concepts pertaining to individual psychology and personification, particularly the word "choice" and its derivatives and antecedents.
Naturally, the concept of free will is moderately hampered by what is commonly known as the nature versus nurture debate, that being if our socially-targeted neural networks are primarily the result of our genetic makeup or our environmental stimuli. The answer, logically, leans neither to one nor to the other, but there are situations in which the question arises rather markedly. These situations have been glorified in the telling of various court cases both fictional and otherwise, and can be related by any number of mental health patients and those who come in frequent close contact with them. It is best summarized by the phrase "they just couldn't help themselves".
I am speaking, of course, of the concepts of sanity and self control, and the idea that an individual can be without these things for a period of time where otherwise they would possess the quality known as free will. I, myself, have experienced numerous encounters with such circumstances where I felt as a passenger in my own mentality, watching myself partake in actions I believed I would otherwise have prevented myself from doing, yet there was always the distinct feeling that were I to reach out mentally and endeavor to cease, I would find myself readily capable.
I apologize for the sudden breach in fluidity, but my mind is racing too quickly for my fingers to follow. Suffice it to say that it is my belief that the only individuals who truly possess a will that is "free" in the conventional sense of the term are those unburdened by emotions and similar chemical addictions. These are the sorts of individuals who can literally alter their frame of mind, perspective, beliefs, morals, attachments, and similar constructs at will without the constraints and long-term consequences faced by the rest of the currently largely chemically-based population. Convention is to label such individuals as sufferers of mental illness. My belief is that it is they who are the only ones among us who are truly well.
Difference of ideal does not an acceptable pathological condition make.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Apr 11, 2009 4:53:34 GMT -5
The problem with free will is that it presumes you can decide to do anything at any time whenever you want. The reality is you'll always act within a number of choices you are familiar with and/or according to the situation you are present in. Sure, the mind still can have a chaotic aspect to it with regards to some decision-making, but chaos is something that can still be modelled mathematically, and thus predicted. All you need is enough information about the system and its behaviour in order to make such a set of predictions. Citing a neuroscience paper in order to support my case ( Chung Siong Soon et al, 2008), which in summary highlights the results of experiments done on decision-making, showing that by monitoring brain activity, one could effectively predict the decision a subject might take up to 10 seconds before the subject makes the choice. This shows that there is an unconscious thought process that prepares the decision a fair bit before we become aware of said decision. Now, if your conscious decision-making was influenced by a unconscious process before you came to make that decision, the idea of having complete free will is destroyed, as no decision you make is completely free and instead is bound by the thought process available to your brain. The brain is nothing but a vast and complex synaptic network of neurons. It will be subject to the laws of physics and of our reality, so to me, free will is not something that reflects what goes on in our mind correctly. A shift in perspective, as Renae describes, is not something that isn't possible within a deterministic model of the mind, as all you'd be doing is activating and focusing using different parts of your brain. This TED talk is a fascinating glimpse of the mind going haywire during a stroke, which also the speakers describes certain things you might find interesting. This said, we all act upon the information available. Whatever information we have, we will use it to base our decisions on. If we are only exposed to bad information, then the likelihood of making bad decisions increases greatly. The feeling that you can do anything you want... well, just what can you do? At best, you will be limited at what you can think of, and what you feel is mostly likely that you will do. Also, because I am saying this now, you'll feel more inclined to act randomly as a reaction to what I say. This in itself would have only come about from being exposed to this bit of information, and normally, should you not have encountered this information, you would have simply continued doing normal things and actions without much thought of 'being random'. This is a sort of determinism, that is based on the reality of how our minds work and that we are limited by the very reality around us. I can analogise it as a game of chess. Even though there are rules on how each piece moves and a range within the pieces are allowed to move, there still seems to be an almost infinite amount of choices one can make with a sequence of different pieces moving (What seems to be 'Free Will'). Now, given enough information about the rules, and the position of the pieces and moves available to them, one should be able to predict how the next move would come about, simply by figuring out what is the piece that will move into the most advantageous position (Determinism). The reality is we all act according to the information available to us and the situation before us. Whilst there is an element of chaos with the brain, it is still not something that can be called free will, because ultimately, the brain will still only act on the information available when making said random decision. And probably, there's a reason behind said decision anyway, even though it may not be consciously apparent. ETA: Oh, and just to add, this model of determinism does nothing to remove personal responsibility for one's actions, instead, merely explaining why one would take such an action when presented with whatever situation. Rewards, punishment and laws are simply systems to modify and influence decision-making patterns to that which are most advantageous for society as a whole. In no way does a deterministic mind remove the aspect of personal responsibility.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 11, 2009 14:45:09 GMT -5
The problem with free will is that it presumes you can decide to do anything at any time whenever you want. The reality is you'll always act within a number of choices you are familiar with and/or according to the situation you are present in. Sure, the mind still can have a chaotic aspect to it with regards to some decision-making, but chaos is something that can still be modelled mathematically, and thus predicted. All you need is enough information about the system and its behaviour in order to make such a set of predictions. Citing a neuroscience paper in order to support my case ( Chung Siong Soon et al, 2008), which in summary highlights the results of experiments done on decision-making, showing that by monitoring brain activity, one could effectively predict the decision a subject might take up to 10 seconds before the subject makes the choice. This shows that there is an unconscious thought process that prepares the decision a fair bit before we become aware of said decision. Now, if your conscious decision-making was influenced by a unconscious process before you came to make that decision, the idea of having complete free will is destroyed, as no decision you make is completely free and instead is bound by the thought process available to your brain. The brain is nothing but a vast and complex synaptic network of neurons. It will be subject to the laws of physics and of our reality, so to me, free will is not something that reflects what goes on in our mind correctly. A shift in perspective, as Renae describes, is not something that isn't possible within a deterministic model of the mind, as all you'd be doing is activating and focusing using different parts of your brain. This TED talk is a fascinating glimpse of the mind going haywire during a stroke, which also the speakers describes certain things you might find interesting. This said, we all act upon the information available. Whatever information we have, we will use it to base our decisions on. If we are only exposed to bad information, then the likelihood of making bad decisions increases greatly. The feeling that you can do anything you want... well, just what can you do? At best, you will be limited at what you can think of, and what you feel is mostly likely that you will do. Also, because I am saying this now, you'll feel more inclined to act randomly as a reaction to what I say. This in itself would have only come about from being exposed to this bit of information, and normally, should you not have encountered this information, you would have simply continued doing normal things and actions without much thought of 'being random'. This is a sort of determinism, that is based on the reality of how our minds work and that we are limited by the very reality around us. I can analogise it as a game of chess. Even though there are rules on how each piece moves and a range within the pieces are allowed to move, there still seems to be an almost infinite amount of choices one can make with a sequence of different pieces moving (What seems to be 'Free Will'). Now, given enough information about the rules, and the position of the pieces and moves available to them, one should be able to predict how the next move would come about, simply by figuring out what is the piece that will move into the most advantageous position (Determinism). The reality is we all act according to the information available to us and the situation before us. Whilst there is an element of chaos with the brain, it is still not something that can be called free will, because ultimately, the brain will still only act on the information available when making said random decision. And probably, there's a reason behind said decision anyway, even though it may not be consciously apparent. This is pretty much what I was saying. Our actions are determined by our previous experiences, and those experiences were determined by a number of other factors that were predetermined (other people's actions-predetermined by their previous experiences, any physical factors like weather, obviously predetermined etc) so it all falls back to being extremely complicated, yet still predetermined. Our brains are simply using previous knowledge to make decisions, and new knowledge alters how we think, and it all adds up. The "chaotic" part of our brain, would probably arise from the fact that we are able to think entirely within our own mind, and fabricate new experiences without external stimuli (what I said with feedback) but these thoughts are still predetermined by our previous experiences as it will be within the scope of some combination of what we normally think or feel. The problem is again, I have a distinct feeling of having free will, and while it's much like a person of faith claiming a feeling (and thus a terrible argument), this feeling has a strong grip and doesn't want to accept that I am not in control of my fate; I would also suspect that most other people have this feeling, even if they don't believe in free will. Something I was going to say to the other post, is that lack of free will doesn't mean that it removes responsibility or punishment. Even if you were predetermined to commit a crime, then the police, judge, and jury were predetermined in their role of punishing you. The concept of free will and the concept of personal responsibility are socially intertwined. If we do in fact have free will, then our actions are chosen, and we are responsible for the outcome and consequences thereof. If, however, some other force is responsible for our actions, whether internal or external makes no difference, then accountability is meaningless and inapplicable. This, then, brings about the concepts of motivation, desire, reward, empathy, morality, personality, the fugue state, identity, awareness, psychosis, and essentially any and all concepts pertaining to individual psychology and personification, particularly the word "choice" and its derivatives and antecedents. Naturally, the concept of free will is moderately hampered by what is commonly known as the nature versus nurture debate, that being if our socially-targeted neural networks are primarily the result of our genetic makeup or our environmental stimuli. The answer, logically, leans neither to one nor to the other, but there are situations in which the question arises rather markedly. These situations have been glorified in the telling of various court cases both fictional and otherwise, and can be related by any number of mental health patients and those who come in frequent close contact with them. It is best summarized by the phrase "they just couldn't help themselves". I am speaking, of course, of the concepts of sanity and self control, and the idea that an individual can be without these things for a period of time where otherwise they would possess the quality known as free will. I, myself, have experienced numerous encounters with such circumstances where I felt as a passenger in my own mentality, watching myself partake in actions I believed I would otherwise have prevented myself from doing, yet there was always the distinct feeling that were I to reach out mentally and endeavor to cease, I would find myself readily capable. I apologize for the sudden breach in fluidity, but my mind is racing too quickly for my fingers to follow. Suffice it to say that it is my belief that the only individuals who truly possess a will that is "free" in the conventional sense of the term are those unburdened by emotions and similar chemical addictions. These are the sorts of individuals who can literally alter their frame of mind, perspective, beliefs, morals, attachments, and similar constructs at will without the constraints and long-term consequences faced by the rest of the currently largely chemically-based population. Convention is to label such individuals as sufferers of mental illness. My belief is that it is they who are the only ones among us who are truly well. Difference of ideal does not an acceptable pathological condition make. Well, since overcoming chemical biological processes leads to free will, aren't those same people still bound by the physical processes going on within their mind? Electromagnetic processes for example? Also how can one truly be above chemical processes? The brain is entirely based on them, while you may be able to overcome some of them-such as emotions, you can't overcome the chemicals that exist in your brain absolutely. And even assuming all this is breakable, where does the free will arise from? It would still seem to me you are bound by some physical laws (unless as my post earlier said, you invoke some supernatural ability inherent in us) and none of those seem to show how free will as we understand it can exist.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Apr 11, 2009 15:04:55 GMT -5
This is pretty much what I was saying. Our actions are determined by our previous experiences, and those experiences were determined by a number of other factors that were predetermined (other people's actions-predetermined by their previous experiences, any physical factors like weather, obviously predetermined etc) so it all falls back to being extremely complicated, yet still predetermined. Our brains are simply using previous knowledge to make decisions, and new knowledge alters how we think, and it all adds up. The "chaotic" part of our brain, would probably arise from the fact that we are able to think entirely within our own mind, and fabricate new experiences without external stimuli (what I said with feedback) but these thoughts are still predetermined by our previous experiences as it will be within the scope of some combination of what we normally think or feel. The brain develops according to the stimuli it receives, and ultimately, yes the process is governed by biochemistry. We are manifestations of this Universe, and thus are bound by the same processes that govern it. I really can't reason why our minds can be somehow more than that without having to invoke untestable ideas. Free Will, in the sense that it is most often presented, is nothing but a remnant of an incorrect Theory of Mind, much like the whole idea of souls, etc. I just can't see how Free Will can exist with what we know about the brain. The problem is again, I have a distinct feeling of having free will, and while it's much like a person of faith claiming a feeling (and thus a terrible argument), this feeling has a strong grip and doesn't want to accept that I am not in control of my fate; I would also suspect that most other people have this feeling, even if they don't believe in free will. This is where I say you didn't quite get what I was saying. You are still in control, but within the scope that your mind is capable of and to what information is available to you (both present and from past experience). Free will is an illusion in the sense that whilst one's decision-making capabilities are potentially chaotic, they are always within the bounds allowed by your mind and reality. Doesn't stop the feeling of being in complete control being present, though that does little to change the reality of how your mind actually works. Something I was going to say to the other post, is that lack of free will doesn't mean that it removes responsibility or punishment. Even if you were predetermined to commit a crime, then the police, judge, and jury were predetermined in their role of punishing you. It isn't just that though. It isn't a case of being predetermined, it is more of a case of your thoughts being skewed in a certain way according to the situation and to the person's nature/experiences. Punishment serves as a means to help alter one's poor decision-making skills by giving a tangible consequence should a bad decision be made. Rehabilitation would give at least provide an even better means to fix one's behaviour so to not be prone to making bad decisions. One is still responsible for their actions. Just because someone is drunk and commits a crime whilst in the state of inebriation, is he excused from the crime because he was drunk and didn't know better? Same thing, really...
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 11, 2009 15:11:59 GMT -5
This is pretty much what I was saying. Our actions are determined by our previous experiences, and those experiences were determined by a number of other factors that were predetermined (other people's actions-predetermined by their previous experiences, any physical factors like weather, obviously predetermined etc) so it all falls back to being extremely complicated, yet still predetermined. Our brains are simply using previous knowledge to make decisions, and new knowledge alters how we think, and it all adds up. The "chaotic" part of our brain, would probably arise from the fact that we are able to think entirely within our own mind, and fabricate new experiences without external stimuli (what I said with feedback) but these thoughts are still predetermined by our previous experiences as it will be within the scope of some combination of what we normally think or feel. The brain develops according to the stimuli it receives, and ultimately, yes the process is governed by biochemistry. We are manifestations of this Universe, and thus are bound by the same processes that govern it. I really can't reason why our minds can be somehow more than that without having to invoke untestable ideas. Free Will, in the sense that it is most often presented, is nothing but a remnant of an incorrect Theory of Mind, much like the whole idea of souls, etc. I just can't see how Free Will can exist with what we know about the brain. This is where I say you didn't quite get what I was saying. You are still in control, but within the scope that your mind is capable of and to what information is available to you (both present and from past experience). Free will is an illusion in the sense that whilst one's decision-making capabilities are potentially chaotic, they are always within the bounds allowed by your mind and reality. Doesn't stop the feeling of being in complete control being present, though that does little to change the reality of how your mind actually works. Something I was going to say to the other post, is that lack of free will doesn't mean that it removes responsibility or punishment. Even if you were predetermined to commit a crime, then the police, judge, and jury were predetermined in their role of punishing you. It isn't just that though. It isn't a case of being predetermined, it is more of a case of your thoughts being skewed in a certain way according to the situation and to the person's nature/experiences. Punishment serves as a means to help alter one's poor decision-making skills by giving a tangible consequence should a bad decision be made. Rehabilitation would give at least provide an even better means to fix one's behaviour so to not be prone to making bad decisions. One is still responsible for their actions. Just because someone is drunk and commits a crime whilst in the state of inebriation, is he excused from the crime because he was drunk and didn't know better? Same thing, really... If I understand what you're saying, you say that while our actions are limited to a certain scope of possible actions, but which action within that range we take IS under our control and we have limited free will? Limited as there are a few finite possible actions, but still free in that we choose between them?
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 11, 2009 15:16:54 GMT -5
I'm inclined to say no, but mostly what I want to understand is what people mean when they talk about free will. Is it an ability to ignore natural laws when the brain processes information? Is it a property that arises from complex decision-making systems? Is it something else? If it's the first, then no. If it's the second, then I suppose it might exist, but then again a robot could also have free will, yet instinctively it seems it isn't so. A more specific definition is needed. If it's something else, well, I can hardly have an opinion about something if I don't know what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Apr 11, 2009 15:27:13 GMT -5
If I understand what you're saying, you say that while our actions are limited to a certain scope of possible actions, but which action within that range we take IS under our control and we have limited free will? Limited as there are a few finite possible actions, but still free in that we choose between them? The possible actions available to us in any given situation will still be effected by the situation itself, the mental state of the subject making the decision, and any experiences/memories/etc the subject has. In the end, we may not have much conscious influence over the decisions we make, but they always occur within the scope of our minds and reality. No action/decision I make is completely free, but always within the scope available to me. I don't have have much choice on certain aspects of me, for example, sexuality and what I find to be pleasant with regards to music, etc. Whilst I can reason why I may like a certain song, in the end, I notice that I'm always attracted to certain aesthetics and sounds, and this is usually dependent on my mood, etc. What I decide is always influenced by my present condition and situation.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 11, 2009 15:33:03 GMT -5
If I understand what you're saying, you say that while our actions are limited to a certain scope of possible actions, but which action within that range we take IS under our control and we have limited free will? Limited as there are a few finite possible actions, but still free in that we choose between them? The possible actions available to us in any given situation will still be effected by the situation itself, the mental state of the subject making the decision, and any experiences/memories/etc the subject has. In the end, we may not have much conscious influence over the decisions we make, but they always occur within the scope of our minds and reality. No action/decision I make is completely free, but always within the scope available to me. I don't have have much choice on certain aspects of me, for example, sexuality and what I find to be pleasant with regards to music, etc. Whilst I can reason why I may like a certain song, in the end, I notice that I'm always attracted to certain aesthetics and sounds, and this is usually dependent on my mood, etc. What I decide is always influenced by my present condition and situation. Well, I guess what I was saying then that the possible actions available to you are always limited to 1. While you may be torn between 2 choices in some given situation, the choice that's going to win out is predetermined based on a huge number of complicated factors so obscure you might be inclined to say it was ultimately up to you, but I see extremely complex systems as still predetermined. I guess in terms of mathematics the example I always use is we are an extremely complex multivariable function, not only does this function take all available inputs (the situation itself, emotions, all known information and predictions on the future) it also self-edits based on the inputs, but still in a predictable way much the way every function is predictable even if complex (think programs that produce, "random," numbers, not truly random, just hard to see the pattern).
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 11, 2009 15:37:36 GMT -5
I'm inclined to say no, but mostly what I want to understand is what people mean when they talk about free will. Is it an ability to ignore natural laws when the brain processes information? Is it a property that arises from complex decision-making systems? Is it something else? If it's the first, then no. If it's the second, then I suppose it might exist, but then again a robot could also have free will, yet instinctively it seems it isn't so. A more specific definition is needed. If it's something else, well, I can hardly have an opinion about something if I don't know what it is. What I mean when I say it is an ability to ignore the "known" natural laws when the brain processes information. Even though I don't think anyone can deny that our brain takes action in an extremely complex fashion, I still see that as predetermined, because in the end all the inputs that lead to that decision were predetermined and it all falls back that we are just following the stimuli we have been exposed to, and that those stimuli were predetermined. It just seems to me that it isn't free will if it's just merely extremely complicated, because it seems to me that for a certain set of things happening in a perfectly specific way, we couldn't have made a choice any other way.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Apr 11, 2009 16:51:05 GMT -5
I believe in reasonably priced will.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Apr 11, 2009 20:10:46 GMT -5
an incorrect Theory of Mind First, I hug the living daylights out of you on behalf of irritated, angry, and mistreated autistics everywhere. * HUG!!![/b]* I believe in reasonably priced will. Second, I hug you for awesomeness. *hughughug!* Third, while I would love to address the comments made about my post, I have no idea where I was going with it, nor do I have enough alcohol to get me there again. This depresses me.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 11, 2009 20:59:40 GMT -5
What I mean when I say it is an ability to ignore the "known" natural laws when the brain processes information. Then no, I don't believe in that. The brain is perfectly natural (much like everything else). It does nothing that can't be explained by our current understanding of natural laws. As Okham might say, why are you multiplying entities without necessity?
|
|
|
Post by perv on Apr 12, 2009 2:12:27 GMT -5
I don't think free will exists in any meaningful sense. It is a useful abstraction. Perhaps a necessary abstraction even; it's hard to imagine how a person could function, especially with other people, without acting as if there was such a thing as "choice".
It's an interesting thing though. Perhaps the concept of free will comes from the inability of the human mind to completely understand itself. Sometimes you make a choice based on rational thought that you can easily understand and put into words. But much more often little every-day choices are made without "thinking" about them. So how did you decide? It's easy to see how people would perceive that as "free will".
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Apr 12, 2009 10:09:15 GMT -5
I don't really want to read through all this, so here are my short thoughts. The answer to the question is unknowable, but we must act as if we have free will, or else we will lose our sense of responsibility and possibly go insane. The problem with this is that knowing the deterministic functions of the mind does nothing to absolve personal responsibility, nor does it endanger our sanity. All it does is underline HOW we come to make our decisions. Why people commit certain actions, or why humans in general tend to behave in fairly predictable ways, all suggest that the underlying functions of our mind are not necessarily 'free', but occur within a framework that is dependent on our experiences, nature, etc. Though, without the concept of free will, it does more interesting questions on when a machine can gain the processing complexity required for at least being able to convince us as being intelligent/sentient. What are the requirements that need to be met, etc.
|
|