Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
ecnetsis
Posts: 16
Joined: November 22nd, 2021, 2:22 pm

Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by ecnetsis »

Please note the following:

- Three subjective timelines exist: TLA, TLB, and TLC.(1)
- Statements 3, 10, and 11 make assertions about TLA.
- Statement 10 makes a claim about TLA that is false from O_B's perspective.
- Statement 10 does not make an assertion about TLB.
- Statement 11 does not make an assertion about TLC.


***

New statements


Here are two new statements for us to consider:

12: O_B is unconscious for 20 years.
13: O_C is unconscious for 10 years.

***

Statement 12 makes an assertion about TLB.

Statement 13 makes an assertion about TLC.



Notes:

1. I discuss subjective timelines in my paper "Temporal Passage."



Adhanom Andemicael
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

So we're not going to actually respond to comments and answer questions.

Great. This went to $h|t quickly.
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Thomyum2 »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 19th, 2021, 9:23 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: December 18th, 2021, 4:32 pm Just noticed this post:
ecnetsis wrote: December 17th, 2021, 1:38 pm Subjective time is an absolute quantity. It is not a quantity that varies depending on the reference frame.
Neither statement there makes much sense to me. How would subjective time be an "absolute quantity" that doesn't depend on the reference frame?
S13: Between m1 and m2, O_A's subjective time (STA) passes for zero seconds.
S14: Between m1 and m2, O_A is unconscious for zero seconds.

Statement S13 is true in all frames of reference.

Statement S14 follows naturally from statement S13.
Actually, no it doesn't. S14 assumes that a particular subjective time is all there is. If "zero seconds" in S14 is objective time, then S14 doesn't follow from S13 at all.
...

First off, you'd not experience "zero seconds." That makes no sense. The mere fact that something is changing or moving is time occurring. You can't experience anything if there is no change/motion.

Secondly, O_B and 0_C are measuring 10 versus 20 years how, exactly?

Third, if from O_B and O_C's perspective, O_A is "unconscious for zero seconds" that means that we're saying that from those perspectives, O_A isn't unconscious, right?
I have to agree with TS here, the idea of being able to quantify 'subjective time' in terms of seconds or years or any other measure is meaningless without the objective and shared reference frame. There's no way to meaningfully compare the duration of any two periods of time subjectively. To say that my subjective time passes for an hour, for example, only means that I feel as if an hour as passed. I'm just putting my subjective experience in objective terms that another person can share in order to communicate that experience as best I can.

It reminds me of a wonderful ending segment from a Star Trek TNG episode from many years ago where Data decides to test the adage that 'a watched pot never boils' and tells Riker that, according to his internal chronometer, the pot boils in exactly the same amount of time whether he is watching it or not. To which Riker replies 'try turning off your internal chronometer'. I think it illustrates the problem perfectly.

But all that said, I think what the OP (who will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong, as it's a little hard to follow from the logical argument) is trying to get at isn't so much that segments of time can be translated or compared between the objective and subjective realms, but rather that 'passage' of time itself is a purely subjective notion. I think this is an idea that was similarly explored by Henri Bergson in his development of the concepts of two kinds of time - a 'mathematical time' which is measured, and a 'real time' which is experienced.

I think there's something to this idea - that the measurement of time - whether Einsteinian or Newtonian - describes a temporal 'distance' between observable events, and isn't something that ever 'passes' at all; whereas what we call the 'passage of time' isn't really an objective feature of the observable world, but is more appropriately thought of as feature of subjective experience. I'd suggest that this 'passage' of time is perhaps a result of the way our brains operate and that happens as a byproduct of the process of forming memories (This is an idea that physicist Carlo Rovelli has also explored in his recent book The Order of Time.) We could make an analogy to traveling over a physical distance where we observe the scenery 'change'. The scenery of course doesn't actually change, but rather appears to change, or 'pass' by us if you will, as a result of our own conscious activity.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Thomyum2 wrote: December 21st, 2021, 3:13 pm I have to agree with TS here, the idea of being able to quantify 'subjective time' in terms of seconds or years or any other measure is meaningless without the objective and shared reference frame. There's no way to meaningfully compare the duration of any two periods of time subjectively. To say that my subjective time passes for an hour, for example, only means that I feel as if an hour as passed. I'm just putting my subjective experience in objective terms that another person can share in order to communicate that experience as best I can.
It's not only that. I'd have no problem if we were saying that "Per Joe's subjective time, only ten minutes have passed, but to Bill's subjective time, a half-hour had past."

It makes much less (realistic/practical) sense to say that "Per Joe's subjective time, 10 years have passed, but to Bill's subjective time, 20 years have passed," because we don't have subjective senses of time that are years-long like that. We regularly "calibrate" our subjective senses of time with objective phenomena--observation of clocks and calendars, our daily/weekly routines, interacting with people around us as they age and do things like progress through school and so on.

Sure, we'll say, "Man, ten years have really seemed to fly by!" But we still realize it's been ten years because of those external calibrations.

That's different than someone being engaged in something for 20 minutes, say, where one person feels like it's only been ten minutes and another feels like it's been 30 minutes.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Oops re my typos, including "past" instead of "passed." I really should proofread before I hit "send" lol
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Thomyum2 wrote: December 21st, 2021, 3:13 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: December 19th, 2021, 9:23 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: December 18th, 2021, 4:32 pm Just noticed this post:
ecnetsis wrote: December 17th, 2021, 1:38 pm Subjective time is an absolute quantity. It is not a quantity that varies depending on the reference frame.
Neither statement there makes much sense to me. How would subjective time be an "absolute quantity" that doesn't depend on the reference frame?
S13: Between m1 and m2, O_A's subjective time (STA) passes for zero seconds.
S14: Between m1 and m2, O_A is unconscious for zero seconds.

Statement S13 is true in all frames of reference.

Statement S14 follows naturally from statement S13.
Actually, no it doesn't. S14 assumes that a particular subjective time is all there is. If "zero seconds" in S14 is objective time, then S14 doesn't follow from S13 at all.
...

First off, you'd not experience "zero seconds." That makes no sense. The mere fact that something is changing or moving is time occurring. You can't experience anything if there is no change/motion.

Secondly, O_B and 0_C are measuring 10 versus 20 years how, exactly?

Third, if from O_B and O_C's perspective, O_A is "unconscious for zero seconds" that means that we're saying that from those perspectives, O_A isn't unconscious, right?
I have to agree with TS here, the idea of being able to quantify 'subjective time' in terms of seconds or years or any other measure is meaningless without the objective and shared reference frame. There's no way to meaningfully compare the duration of any two periods of time subjectively. To say that my subjective time passes for an hour, for example, only means that I feel as if an hour as passed. I'm just putting my subjective experience in objective terms that another person can share in order to communicate that experience as best I can.

It reminds me of a wonderful ending segment from a Star Trek TNG episode from many years ago where Data decides to test the adage that 'a watched pot never boils' and tells Riker that, according to his internal chronometer, the pot boils in exactly the same amount of time whether he is watching it or not. To which Riker replies 'try turning off your internal chronometer'. I think it illustrates the problem perfectly.

But all that said, I think what the OP (who will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong, as it's a little hard to follow from the logical argument) is trying to get at isn't so much that segments of time can be translated or compared between the objective and subjective realms, but rather that 'passage' of time itself is a purely subjective notion. I think this is an idea that was similarly explored by Henri Bergson in his development of the concepts of two kinds of time - a 'mathematical time' which is measured, and a 'real time' which is experienced.

I think there's something to this idea - that the measurement of time - whether Einsteinian or Newtonian - describes a temporal 'distance' between observable events, and isn't something that ever 'passes' at all; whereas what we call the 'passage of time' isn't really an objective feature of the observable world, but is more appropriately thought of as feature of subjective experience. I'd suggest that this 'passage' of time is perhaps a result of the way our brains operate and that happens as a byproduct of the process of forming memories (This is an idea that physicist Carlo Rovelli has also explored in his recent book The Order of Time.) We could make an analogy to traveling over a physical distance where we observe the scenery 'change'. The scenery of course doesn't actually change, but rather appears to change, or 'pass' by us if you will, as a result of our own conscious activity.
Re the rest of your post, by the way, there's simply a difference between notions/ideas/concepts/etc.--which are obviously subjective, and what they're notions/ideas/concepts of or in response to, which is often (though not necessarily always) objective. It's bizarre to me that this seems so often and so easily confused.

Objectively, time is simply change, including motion. One can attempt to argue that there is no objective change or motion, a la Parmenides, or a la some idealist nonsense or other, but one would actually need to present the argument, and one would need to directly deal with objections to the argument instead of just ignoring them, just diverting, etc.
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Thomyum2 »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 22nd, 2021, 10:29 am Re the rest of your post, by the way, there's simply a difference between notions/ideas/concepts/etc.--which are obviously subjective, and what they're notions/ideas/concepts of or in response to, which is often (though not necessarily always) objective. It's bizarre to me that this seems so often and so easily confused.

Objectively, time is simply change, including motion. One can attempt to argue that there is no objective change or motion, a la Parmenides, or a la some idealist nonsense or other, but one would actually need to present the argument, and one would need to directly deal with objections to the argument instead of just ignoring them, just diverting, etc.
I think I see what you're saying, but for me it then begs the question: 'What is it that is changing?' The only thing that we can say is changing is that which is observed. So then is it the object under observation - the thing itself - that is changing, or is the subject that's perspective or position that is changing? It takes us right back to relativity where we look out the window of our train and think we are moving but then realize that it's the train next to us that the one actually moving. So where is the change taking place? In the object or the subject? So I think time can't be said to be purely an objective phenomenon - it requires both subject and an object. They're like two sides of the same coin.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

So say that we have a universe where only three particles exist.

Let's say that "@" represents the particles and "...." is just a representation of distance between them (which I'm using because if I try to use the space bar, the message board app will delete the spaces unfortunately)

So we have

@ .................@.............................@

as the spatial relation between the three particles

But then we have:

@...............@.....................@
and then:
@.............@.............@
then:
@..........@..........@

and so on.

The spatial relations are changing.

Those changes are objective, because we have three particles in our universe only, and no consciousness for subjectivity to even exist in our universe.
Time is identical to those changes above.
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Thomyum2 »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 23rd, 2021, 4:14 pm So say that we have a universe where only three particles exist.

Let's say that "@" represents the particles and "...." is just a representation of distance between them (which I'm using because if I try to use the space bar, the message board app will delete the spaces unfortunately)

So we have

@ .................@.............................@

as the spatial relation between the three particles

But then we have:

@...............@.....................@
and then:
@.............@.............@
then:
@..........@..........@

and so on.

The spatial relations are changing.

Those changes are objective, because we have three particles in our universe only, and no consciousness for subjectivity to even exist in our universe.
Time is identical to those changes above.
Understood, yes, but what you have given here is a universe which we can imagine because it resembles actual observations we've experienced in the real world. But it's just a mental picture of a universe, it's not a real universe. If you put three particles in a box, close the lid and aren't ever allowed to look, the only change that can happen is what we might imagine. A clock that you can't look at won't ever be able to tell you the time.

What you've described is a sequence of four observations and yes, time is identical to the change from each observation and the next. But without an observer - a subject - an observation can't be made. Time is a component of the observations, not just of the objects observed. Time may be objective, but only in the context of the act of making an observation, which requires a subject as well.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Let's try this:
Thomyum2 wrote: December 24th, 2021, 6:59 pm If you put three particles in a box, close the lid and aren't ever allowed to look, the only change that can happen is what we might imagine.
Why in the world would you believe something like that?
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Thomyum2 »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 24th, 2021, 10:13 pm Let's try this:
Thomyum2 wrote: December 24th, 2021, 6:59 pm If you put three particles in a box, close the lid and aren't ever allowed to look, the only change that can happen is what we might imagine.
Why in the world would you believe something like that?
I likely wouldn't if there was ever a chance that anyone could look in that box. But if no one can ever observe those particles again, then any one belief about them is equally valid as another.

'Change' is a difference between observations - there is a change when we observe something multiple times and something that was observed is different in some way from one observation to the next. It's the 'then' in your example above, the separation between the observations, that is the time. But if we only have a single observation, or no observer, there can be no change. The act of observation is required to have time.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Thomyum2 wrote: December 26th, 2021, 9:11 pm I likely wouldn't if there was ever a chance that anyone could look in that box. But if no one can ever observe those particles again, then any one belief about them is equally valid as another.
That's not answering the question. You're choosing a particular belief here. Why? You're not saying that it's just as likely that the particles in the box really are in motion. You're saying they're not. Why would you believe that if all beliefs are "equally valid"?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Belindi »

Thomyum2 wrote: December 26th, 2021, 9:11 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: December 24th, 2021, 10:13 pm Let's try this:
Thomyum2 wrote: December 24th, 2021, 6:59 pm If you put three particles in a box, close the lid and aren't ever allowed to look, the only change that can happen is what we might imagine.
Why in the world would you believe something like that?
I likely wouldn't if there was ever a chance that anyone could look in that box. But if no one can ever observe those particles again, then any one belief about them is equally valid as another.

'Change' is a difference between observations - there is a change when we observe something multiple times and something that was observed is different in some way from one observation to the next. It's the 'then' in your example above, the separation between the observations, that is the time. But if we only have a single observation, or no observer, there can be no change. The act of observation is required to have time.
I agree " But if we only have a single observation, or no observer, there can be no change. "

Three 'particles' in a box may change, and each know that they change, if each 'particle ' is capable of experiencing each other particle , in lieu of any other environmental possibility. Environment is the obverse of subjective experience. What amounts to environment, for an idealist, is amorphous possibility.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Belindi wrote: December 27th, 2021, 7:07 am
Thomyum2 wrote: December 26th, 2021, 9:11 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: December 24th, 2021, 10:13 pm Let's try this:
Thomyum2 wrote: December 24th, 2021, 6:59 pm If you put three particles in a box, close the lid and aren't ever allowed to look, the only change that can happen is what we might imagine.
Why in the world would you believe something like that?
I likely wouldn't if there was ever a chance that anyone could look in that box. But if no one can ever observe those particles again, then any one belief about them is equally valid as another.

'Change' is a difference between observations - there is a change when we observe something multiple times and something that was observed is different in some way from one observation to the next. It's the 'then' in your example above, the separation between the observations, that is the time. But if we only have a single observation, or no observer, there can be no change. The act of observation is required to have time.
I agree " But if we only have a single observation, or no observer, there can be no change. "

Three 'particles' in a box may change, and each know that they change, if each 'particle ' is capable of experiencing each other particle , in lieu of any other environmental possibility. Environment is the obverse of subjective experience. What amounts to environment, for an idealist, is amorphous possibility.
Why would we be adopting idealism though?
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Thomyum2 »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 26th, 2021, 10:30 pm
Thomyum2 wrote: December 26th, 2021, 9:11 pm I likely wouldn't if there was ever a chance that anyone could look in that box. But if no one can ever observe those particles again, then any one belief about them is equally valid as another.
That's not answering the question. You're choosing a particular belief here. Why? You're not saying that it's just as likely that the particles in the box really are in motion. You're saying they're not. Why would you believe that if all beliefs are "equally valid"?
I'm not sure I understand how my beliefs are relevant to the thread topic. And to be honest, I'm not even sure I believe one way or the other in this case, I'm just trying to explore a line of thought and get perspectives on it.

So just to clarify, I'm not saying that the particles in the box are or are not in motion - I'm saying that if they are excluded from all possibility of observation, anything we can say about the particles - their state, motion, their relationship to each other or anything else about them - remains purely a mental image or model. They aren't 'really' doing anything at all, we are just imagining that they are - we're filling in the blanks based on our own experience.

So in the context of the thread, I'm asking how is it possible to understand the idea that time passes in the absence of an active observer? It seems to me that time comes about as the product of the act of observation and isn't something that exists intrinsically. For example, if you look at your 3-particle example above again: the positions of those particles could be understood to be moving - i.e. getting closer to each other - to a stationary observer. But those same observations could be produced by three stationary particles if the observer was moving away from them. So the particles objectively are neither moving nor stationary outside of the context of observation or without knowing the relationship to an observer. That's why I'm suggesting that change or time is a component of observations, not of observed objects. It requires both the subjective and objective components. If you take the observer out of the equation, it eliminates the frame of reference, and then how can time remain or continue to pass in that universe that has no observer?
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021