Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4728
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by Scott »

Scott wrote: June 7th, 2021, 4:26 pm
However, to make things clearer, let me rephrase:

If you went to sleep in Scott's body in Scott's bed with Scott's memories, and awoke in Terrapin Station's body in Terrapin Station's bed with Terrapin Station's memories, would you notice a difference? Would there be a difference to notice?
Terrapin Station wrote: June 7th, 2021, 4:43 pm In other words, your memories ARE a part of your body--namely, a subset of your brain structure/function.
The re-phrased question does not use the phrase "your body" or "my body". I agree that Scott's memories at any given time are a non-defining part of Scott (i.e. Scott's body), much like his heart or liver are each also a part of his body. Similarly, the steering wheel and gas in a car are part of the car at that time, but they can be changed, removed, and/or replaced and the car is the the car and Scott is still Scott.

What's your answer to the re-phrased question:

If you went to sleep in Scott's body in Scott's bed with Scott's memories, and awoke in Terrapin Station's body in Terrapin Station's bed with Terrapin Station's memories, would you notice a difference? Would there be a difference to notice?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4728
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by Scott »

Scott wrote: May 15th, 2021, 10:57 am If you went to sleep in my body in my bed with my memories,
Count Lucanor wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 12:05 pm This does not start well. Being Scott's body, Scott's bed and Scott's memories, how could it be me that went to sleep?
I don't understand the question. Why can't it be you who went to sleep?

In any case, let me ask a slightly modified question:

If you went to sleep in Count Lucanor's body in Count Lucanor's bed with Count Lucanor's memories, and awoke in Scott's body in Scott's bed with Scott's memories, would you notice a difference? Would there be a difference to notice?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 5714
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by Terrapin Station »

Scott wrote: June 7th, 2021, 4:54 pm The re-phrased question does not use the phrase "your body" or "my body".
So what? Your memories are identical to a subset of your brain structure/function, whatever language you use or avoid. Someone else can't be "in your body" because what makes that person that person in terms of mental phenomena is their brain. In order to be the person they are, we have to be talking about their brain. In order for you to be the person you are, we have to be talking about your brain. Their brain can't be your brain.
User avatar
AmericanKestrel
Posts: 213
Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
Location: US

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by AmericanKestrel »

Scott wrote: June 7th, 2021, 4:36 pm
AmericanKestrel wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:00 pm
Scott wrote: May 15th, 2021, 10:57 am
If you went to sleep in my body in my bed with my memories, and awoke in your body in your bed with your memories, would you notice a difference? Would there be a difference to notice?
There will be no difference in your spirit/atma/conciousness. There is only one consciousness, but bodies and minds carry memories. Those belong to your body not your spirit.
I agree.

Does that therefore mean that #1 and #2 below are identical, meaning they are the same thing:

(1) You being in Scott's body and me being in AmericanKestrel's body.

(2) You being in AmericanKestrel body and me being in Scott's body.

?
Yes.
The being in Scott an AK is the same because it exists everywhere, there is no place it does not exist. It is the same being that exists in every name and form, including Scott’s pet turtle. This is how instead of one single being there are multiple names and forms. What is within the names and forms is one single thing. The body is unreal.
"The Serpent did not lie."
AverageBozo
Posts: 137
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by AverageBozo »

Scott wrote: June 7th, 2021, 4:30 pm
AverageBozo wrote: May 16th, 2021, 10:53 am
Scott wrote: May 15th, 2021, 5:32 pm
AverageBozo wrote: May 15th, 2021, 1:09 pm
The reality that the I that is you knows is different than the one that the I that is me knows, but with only one awareness (a partial one at that) operational at a time there would be no way to notice that reality had changed from one to the other.
If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that you believe that there would be a difference but it would be imperceptible, meaning something would have actually changed but it would impossible to be noticed or observed; is that correct?
Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

However I would like to clarify that a difference exists that could be observed, but neither of the I’s would be aware of that difference nor even be able to be aware of a difference, because they each have only one reality and therefore cannot make a comparison.
Are you saying a third-party observer could notice the difference? Are you saying some kind of physical material difference would exist that could be noticed by observing the atoms and molecules in the two bodies?
The short answer is yes.

Rick falls asleep in Scott’s bed in Scott’s body with Scott’s memories. At this moment, Rick appears to be Scott asleep in Scott’s bed. After a good night’s sleep, Rick gets out of his own bed in his own body with his own memories. At this moment, Rick appears to be Rick.

Rick is short and bald and has a distinctive limp. Scott does not. Any Bozo can see the difference between Scott asleep in Scott’s bed and Rick arising from Rick’s bed.

Therefore any Bozo can see there’s a difference. A random 3rd party, having no access to other’s memories or consciousness, can only observe beds and bodies.
User avatar
mystery
Posts: 300
Joined: May 14th, 2021, 5:41 am
Favorite Philosopher: Mike Tyson
Location: earth

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by mystery »

Scott wrote: June 7th, 2021, 4:33 pm
mystery wrote: May 19th, 2021, 4:44 am We would not notice or be aware of a difference, although a difference would exist. The senses that we have will not provide us the information about the difference.
Would there necessarily be a material physical difference that could in theory be observed by a third-party observer?
Yes, for sure. The same issue is the ability to perceive it as well as the knowledge to understand the perception. Any sort of change is backed up by material physical. Much of science is exactly about searching for those details because we know they must exist.

Possibilities are infinite.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1329
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by Count Lucanor »

Scott wrote: June 7th, 2021, 5:03 pm
Scott wrote: May 15th, 2021, 10:57 am If you went to sleep in my body in my bed with my memories,
Count Lucanor wrote: June 2nd, 2021, 12:05 pm This does not start well. Being Scott's body, Scott's bed and Scott's memories, how could it be me that went to sleep?
I don't understand the question. Why can't it be you who went to sleep?
Because nothing of what is described as a subject going to sleep (Scott's body with Scott's memories) is related to me, only to Scott.
Scott wrote: June 7th, 2021, 5:03 pm In any case, let me ask a slightly modified question:

If you went to sleep in Count Lucanor's body in Count Lucanor's bed with Count Lucanor's memories, and awoke in Scott's body in Scott's bed with Scott's memories, would you notice a difference? Would there be a difference to notice?
So basically an individual identifiable as Count Lucanor goes to sleep in his bed one night. We don't know what happened to his body and memories in that same bed the next morning (this information is not supplied). Another individual identifiable as Scott awakes in his bed next morning. We don't know what was of his body and memories in that bed last night (this information is not supplied). Assuming something rather strange happened and these were not common individuals going to sleep and waking up next morning in their beds, the first question that comes to mind is: who is being asked to notice a difference, the person who went to sleep or the person who woke up? What happened to the bodies of Count Lucanor and Scott during the night (the information not yet supplied)?
-0+
Posts: 223
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by -0+ »

Scott wrote: May 15th, 2021, 10:57 am If you went to sleep in my body in my bed with my memories, and awoke in your body in your bed with your memories, would you notice a difference? Would there be a difference to notice?
The 2nd question can be addressed first. If there is no difference to notice then the 1st question may be irrelevant.

If there is a difference to notice then intermediate questions can be asked: Would "you" have the ability to notice a difference? What would be required to notice a difference?

In order for "you" to notice a difference, it seems that there has to be more to "you" than the body and body-dependent mind of "you". "You" would need to have some additional body-independent memory or access to historical data regarding body possession to notice a difference.

Anyone who rejects the idea that there can be anything more to them than their body and memories may not be able to go beyond the if-condition of the questions.

If it is accepted that it is at least conceivable one is able to notice a difference, the 1st question can be addressed. Ability to notice a difference doesn't imply a difference will be noticed. How can anyone tell if they would notice a difference? Even if one has previously experienced waking up in another body and noticing a difference, how can one tell if one will a notice a difference the next time this happens?

This is like asking: "If your body dies and you reincarnate, will you have any memory of your current life in your next life?"

Considering a computer game universe that is inhabited by characters who are controlled to some extent by human players may help to conceptualise this. Each character can have its own "body" of data, including memories, which can be observed. If John is the player of a character called Paul, John will also have his own memory which he can observe. If Paul dies, John will normally continue to live and may retain some memory of playing Paul. If John plays again then his new character may have none of Paul's memories (unless the game allows memory of past characters to be inherited).

If John and Mary swap characters, so he plays Jane and she plays Paul, the players are likely to notice the difference. But will the characters notice a difference - that they have different players? If they sense they are being played differently, how can they tell if they have different players or their regular players are just playing differently?

If Paul experiences some kind of consciousness generated by the activity of his data, he may ask: "Who am I?" Is "he" just his body of data, his player, some combination of the two, or something more than this?

While John is playing Paul, he may experience a shift in consciousness, feeling he and Paul are becoming more "as one". Do they experience the same consciousness, completely separate consciousnesses, or something in-between? How can anyone tell?

Human observers can view Paul's "brain" activity and tell that he has a player, who is playing him, and what input this player has. How can Paul know whether he has a player or not (whether or not there is more to him than his body and memory)? Paul can know what he is experiencing. How can human observers know what Paul is experiencing (if anything)?
CIN
Posts: 166
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:33 am

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by CIN »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 7th, 2021, 7:23 am
CIN wrote: June 6th, 2021, 6:39 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: June 6th, 2021, 6:32 pm
CIN wrote: June 6th, 2021, 6:24 pm
Theories of consciousness fall into two classes: those which appear to require some feature of reality for which we have no evidence in order to solve the problem (dualism, idealism), and those which don't require such a feature, but don't appear to solve the problem (functionalism, eliminativism).

Apparently, then, any theory that solves the problem must have some feature for which we have no evidence. Since we don't know what that feature is, it could, for all we know, be God, as postulated by Malebranche and Berkeley, and also by my one-time philosophy tutor, the late John Foster.
LOL at the notion of gods solving any problem. You may as well just say that Harry Potter waves a magic wand and says "Scrimbooblio!" and that "solves" any problem.
That reaction would be fine if we had the faintest inkling of what the real explanation of consciousness looks like, but we don't. All you're doing is holding up a card saying "I'm an atheist." That's about you, not about the problem.
If we're going to critique things in terms of explanations and whether there is one, we need to examine the notion of explanations. Are you prepared to do that?
Possibly, but it might save us both time if I observe that Occasionalism could only explain consciousness if the following two propositions were true:
1) We have good reason to believe that God exists.
2) We have an explanation of how God manages to keep mental and physical events in sync.
Both of these propositions are false for us, but for all we know, they may be true for some other beings (though I'm not holding my breath).

I'm agnostic about God's existence. Theists and atheists irritate me. Theists claim that God is the explanation for the existence of the universe; they don't understand that mere naming does not constitute an explanation - an explanation would have to say not just that God made the universe, but how he did it. Atheists claim to know that something does not exist which ex hypothesi cannot be detected by our senses and our scientific instruments, and this is illogical. (Please don't quote Russell's teapot at me; there are writings in the bible which purport to be evidence for the existence of God, while there are no such writings for the teapot, so Russell was drawing a bad analogy.)

End of agnostic rant. If you still feel we need to discuss the notion of explanation, fire away.
Philosophy is a waste of time. But then, so is most of life.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 5714
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by Terrapin Station »

CIN wrote: June 8th, 2021, 12:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: June 7th, 2021, 7:23 am
CIN wrote: June 6th, 2021, 6:39 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: June 6th, 2021, 6:32 pm
LOL at the notion of gods solving any problem. You may as well just say that Harry Potter waves a magic wand and says "Scrimbooblio!" and that "solves" any problem.
That reaction would be fine if we had the faintest inkling of what the real explanation of consciousness looks like, but we don't. All you're doing is holding up a card saying "I'm an atheist." That's about you, not about the problem.
If we're going to critique things in terms of explanations and whether there is one, we need to examine the notion of explanations. Are you prepared to do that?
Possibly, but it might save us both time if I observe that Occasionalism could only explain consciousness if the following two propositions were true:
1) We have good reason to believe that God exists.
2) We have an explanation of how God manages to keep mental and physical events in sync.
Both of these propositions are false for us, but for all we know, they may be true for some other beings (though I'm not holding my breath).

I'm agnostic about God's existence. Theists and atheists irritate me. Theists claim that God is the explanation for the existence of the universe; they don't understand that mere naming does not constitute an explanation - an explanation would have to say not just that God made the universe, but how he did it. Atheists claim to know that something does not exist which ex hypothesi cannot be detected by our senses and our scientific instruments, and this is illogical. (Please don't quote Russell's teapot at me; there are writings in the bible which purport to be evidence for the existence of God, while there are no such writings for the teapot, so Russell was drawing a bad analogy.)

End of agnostic rant. If you still feel we need to discuss the notion of explanation, fire away.
Well, it's necessary if we're going to critique things on whether they explain something--like whether physicalism explains consciousness. Otherwise we can't critique anything on the grounds of whether it's an explanation.

What would you say are the general criteria for something to count as an explanation, and why are those the criteria?
AverageBozo
Posts: 137
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by AverageBozo »

Explanations make something understandable, such as how something happens or the reason why it happens, and similarly for the existence of something or its contents.
AverageBozo
Posts: 137
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by AverageBozo »

AverageBozo wrote: June 8th, 2021, 7:25 pm Explanations make something understandable, such as how something happens or the reason why it happens, and similarly for the existence of something or its contents.
Explanations render something understandable, such as how something happens or the reason it happens, and what it means, or why something exists or what its contents are.
Gertie
Posts: 1312
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by Gertie »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 8th, 2021, 1:51 pm
CIN wrote: June 8th, 2021, 12:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: June 7th, 2021, 7:23 am
CIN wrote: June 6th, 2021, 6:39 pm That reaction would be fine if we had the faintest inkling of what the real explanation of consciousness looks like, but we don't. All you're doing is holding up a card saying "I'm an atheist." That's about you, not about the problem.
If we're going to critique things in terms of explanations and whether there is one, we need to examine the notion of explanations. Are you prepared to do that?
Possibly, but it might save us both time if I observe that Occasionalism could only explain consciousness if the following two propositions were true:
1) We have good reason to believe that God exists.
2) We have an explanation of how God manages to keep mental and physical events in sync.
Both of these propositions are false for us, but for all we know, they may be true for some other beings (though I'm not holding my breath).

I'm agnostic about God's existence. Theists and atheists irritate me. Theists claim that God is the explanation for the existence of the universe; they don't understand that mere naming does not constitute an explanation - an explanation would have to say not just that God made the universe, but how he did it. Atheists claim to know that something does not exist which ex hypothesi cannot be detected by our senses and our scientific instruments, and this is illogical. (Please don't quote Russell's teapot at me; there are writings in the bible which purport to be evidence for the existence of God, while there are no such writings for the teapot, so Russell was drawing a bad analogy.)

End of agnostic rant. If you still feel we need to discuss the notion of explanation, fire away.
Well, it's necessary if we're going to critique things on whether they explain something--like whether physicalism explains consciousness. Otherwise we can't critique anything on the grounds of whether it's an explanation.

What would you say are the general criteria for something to count as an explanation, and why are those the criteria?
I think (not sure) an explanation is different to a description, in that it invokes the concept of ''Because''.

And an explanation which invokes ''because...'' must refer to some sort of causal model. Such as Physicalism. The Physicalist model (explanatory theory) is extremely successful, because it works, and because it makes sense conceptually, in that (I think) it relies on reducibility all the way down to identifiable Fundamental constituents - the most basic stuff and forces. These fundamentals are the brute facts which can only be described, not themselves explained by anything else.

That's an intellectually satisfying model of what the universe is made of, and how it works, in objective, scientific, empirical, quantitative types of terms. (Psychologically, subjectively, meaningfully, qualiatively - perhaps less satisfying).

But there are some outstanding questions/anomalies in that Physicalist explanatory model. And consciousness is one.

Alternatively we can invoke eg a Creator God as Fundamental, the First Cause, Prime Mover. Which itself cannot be explained, only described. That too is an explanation, we can say God caused the universe to exist, work the way it works, etc. And produce evidence and arguments of different sorts appropriate such a theory.

I think this does better at providing subjectively satisfying meaningful, qualiative type answers, but not so good using the physicalist objective type criteria we can more easily agree on.

As the physicalist model steadily encroaches on explaining notions like meaning and value, psychology itself, it hits the interface of Consciousness. Where physical brain meets subjective mind. And that's proving intractable in terms of explanation for physicalism, partly because the physicalist toolkit relies on objective criteria of observation and measurement.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 5714
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Question for non-zombies: If you went to sleep as me in my bed with my memories...

Post by Terrapin Station »

Gertie wrote: June 12th, 2021, 2:52 am
Terrapin Station wrote: June 8th, 2021, 1:51 pm
CIN wrote: June 8th, 2021, 12:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: June 7th, 2021, 7:23 am

If we're going to critique things in terms of explanations and whether there is one, we need to examine the notion of explanations. Are you prepared to do that?
Possibly, but it might save us both time if I observe that Occasionalism could only explain consciousness if the following two propositions were true:
1) We have good reason to believe that God exists.
2) We have an explanation of how God manages to keep mental and physical events in sync.
Both of these propositions are false for us, but for all we know, they may be true for some other beings (though I'm not holding my breath).

I'm agnostic about God's existence. Theists and atheists irritate me. Theists claim that God is the explanation for the existence of the universe; they don't understand that mere naming does not constitute an explanation - an explanation would have to say not just that God made the universe, but how he did it. Atheists claim to know that something does not exist which ex hypothesi cannot be detected by our senses and our scientific instruments, and this is illogical. (Please don't quote Russell's teapot at me; there are writings in the bible which purport to be evidence for the existence of God, while there are no such writings for the teapot, so Russell was drawing a bad analogy.)

End of agnostic rant. If you still feel we need to discuss the notion of explanation, fire away.
Well, it's necessary if we're going to critique things on whether they explain something--like whether physicalism explains consciousness. Otherwise we can't critique anything on the grounds of whether it's an explanation.

What would you say are the general criteria for something to count as an explanation, and why are those the criteria?
I think (not sure) an explanation is different to a description, in that it invokes the concept of ''Because''.

And an explanation which invokes ''because...'' must refer to some sort of causal model. Such as Physicalism. The Physicalist model (explanatory theory) is extremely successful, because it works, and because it makes sense conceptually, in that (I think) it relies on reducibility all the way down to identifiable Fundamental constituents - the most basic stuff and forces. These fundamentals are the brute facts which can only be described, not themselves explained by anything else.

That's an intellectually satisfying model of what the universe is made of, and how it works, in objective, scientific, empirical, quantitative types of terms. (Psychologically, subjectively, meaningfully, qualiatively - perhaps less satisfying).

But there are some outstanding questions/anomalies in that Physicalist explanatory model. And consciousness is one.

Alternatively we can invoke eg a Creator God as Fundamental, the First Cause, Prime Mover. Which itself cannot be explained, only described. That too is an explanation, we can say God caused the universe to exist, work the way it works, etc. And produce evidence and arguments of different sorts appropriate such a theory.

I think this does better at providing subjectively satisfying meaningful, qualiative type answers, but not so good using the physicalist objective type criteria we can more easily agree on.

As the physicalist model steadily encroaches on explaining notions like meaning and value, psychology itself, it hits the interface of Consciousness. Where physical brain meets subjective mind. And that's proving intractable in terms of explanation for physicalism, partly because the physicalist toolkit relies on objective criteria of observation and measurement.
Okay, wait though. It seems to me like we're kind of cursorily brushing past criteria for explanations and WHY those are the criteria.

So far we've got that (1) Explanations must be "because" accounts, and (2) Explanations must refer to some sort of causal model.

And that seems to be all that we have so far by way of criteria.

Does this mean that, for example, if we say that "consciousness is a subset of brain states because that's how neurons, synapses, etc. work in conjunction with each other, and this refers to the causal model of the neurosciences, particularly the field research that has correlated that causal model to subjective mental states" that we now have an explanation of consciousness? That seems to satisfy the criteria you proposed. Or is there something else to it? Are we not detailing the criteria well enough? Are we leaving out some criteria?

And note that whatever our statement of criteria for explanations, it's going to need to work just as well for anything that we're claiming is explained. So, for example, if we claim that plant photosynthesis is explained, or if we claim that there's an explanation for how to make a guitar, or whatever we'd say there's an explanation for, the explanation is going to have to fit our criteria for explanations.

On the other side of this, if criteria for explanations require a causal model, how would "God did it," or even just "it's nonphysical" be an explanation for anything--unless you're saying that there's a causal model of "God did it" or "it's nonphysical"? What would that causal model be (and we're going to need to set forth criteria for just what count as causal models, by the way, as well as the requirement of justifying that everything is causal.)
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

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