Which of these is Real and True?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Age » Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:50 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:47 pm
"Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."

I think it's more like this...

Man apprehends thing, experiences its qualities, names those qualities, names the thing.

Without Man there is no apprehending of thing, no experiencing of thing's qualities, no naming of those qualities, no naming of thing, but thing remains or persists.

Thing retains all its qualities and exists but does so un-apprehended, un-experienced, un-named, never given significance.

Man brings recognition and meaning and names to Reality (Man brings significations to things) but Man does not create Reality (or the things in it)
You had merely assumed 'thing' pre-existed prior to comprehension.

Note the Problem of a Heap.
At what point is a grain and falling grains of sand a heap?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

So at what point or when is a thing, a 'thing?'
This is problem that leads to infinite regression.
That so called "problem" has ALREADY been answered AND solved. Thus NO problem at all, anyway.

The answer and solution to this also answers and solves that other question: What came first the chicken or the egg?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:50 am
If we insist there is an original real 'thing' to start with, that is a delusion.
So, WHY do 'you', "veritas aequitas", INSIST things like this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:50 am
To speculate of "things" we cannot even speak off would be delusional.
Is this like speculating on what the actual REAL Truth IS, but actually NOT KNOWING what 'It' IS?

If yes, then 'you', "veritas aequitas", have a tendency to do this quite often "yourself".
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:50 am
This why Wittgenstein proposed,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
He meant it literally and thus one must shut up in such a situation.
Pity 'you', "veritas aequitas", do NOT follow the advice 'you' expect "others" to do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:50 am
We should start with the most certain fact we can speak off, i.e. humans exist as real.
Humans are the most real as evident from one own experiences and inferring the mirror existence of other humans.
That is why I started with 'humans' in the following equation;
"Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."
What is the definition of a real 'human'?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:50 am
All the above are empirically verifiable.
If we were to introduce 'thing' into the above equation, then we are lost with something unknowable.

Why?

If 'you' know what 'human' IS, then why do supposedly NOT know what 'thing' IS?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:50 am
Theists had already substituted that 'thing' as a real God which in certain cases commands theist to war against and kill non-believers.
'veritas aequitas" is consistently substituting a lot to address those strongly HELD BELIEFS when they have been SHOWN to be absurdly WRONG, or just plainly WRONG.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:50 am
The above equation has nothing to do with solipsism.
The fact is man and humans in the above are the real thing, how can that be solipsism.
That is the best we can do.
Exactly how does any of this have some thing to do with things pre-existing before human beings comprehending?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

VA

Post by henry quirk » Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:41 pm

"You had merely assumed 'thing' pre-existed prior to comprehension."

With good reason. As I say: I'm too dumb to be imagining Reality, and all the things in Reality, into existence, so Reality, and all the things in Reality, must exist independent of me.

#

"So at what point or when is a thing, a 'thing?'"

When it sits there, lookin' at you, wonderin' why you don't bring it roses anymore.

#

"If we insist there is an original real 'thing' to start with, that is a delusion."

So you're a 'Steady State' guy.

#

"Humans are the most real as evident from one own experiences and inferring the mirror existence of other humans."

If apples only come into being when comprehended mebbe other people only come into being when comprehended. Mebbe Reality is just you imagining it. If so: as one of your imaginings, I have to say, you're doin' a piss-poor job of it.

commonsense
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by commonsense » Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:52 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:44 am
commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:58 pm
...but we have no means at our disposal to actually prove it exists.

When a human experiences an apple, it certainly exists for that human, as long as that human accepts its own experience as evidence.

This acceptance, or assumption, is wholly dependent on the human.

If the human cannot accept/believe/trust his experience, he cannot function in the world he perceives.

So, to be a functional human being requires acceptance of one’s own experience as evidence or proof.

And when a human is not experiencing an apple, there is no means to verify the existence of apples.
Do 'you' trust and/or believe some things that are told to 'you', by "others"?

If yes, then when 'you' are not experiencing, firsthand, a thing, which is known as "apple", then could that be at least one means to verify the existence of those things known as "apples"?
Regarding your last question: strictly, no; practically, yes.

commonsense
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by commonsense » Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:00 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:38 am
commonsense wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:16 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:47 pm
"Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."

I think it's more like this...

Man apprehends thing, experiences its qualities, names those qualities, names the thing.

Without Man there is no apprehending of thing, no experiencing of thing's qualities, no naming of those qualities, no naming of thing, but thing remains or persists.

Thing retains all its qualities and exists but does so un-apprehended, un-experienced, un-named, never given significance.

Man brings recognition and meaning and names to Reality (Man brings significations to things) but Man does not create Reality (or the things in it)
If someone were to say to me that anything we experience is real in every way and does not change when it is not being experienced or thought of, I would say that that sounds sorta like something that Henry has been telling us all along.

And I would guess that this is correct, but I cannot know that with certainty. If someone could just prove it to be correct, then I would know it to be unquestionably true.

So I suppose that the proof I’m waiting for would look something like this: If [insert argument here], then an object exists even when no one experiences or thinks of it.

I assert that there is no proof like that.
The only proof I can offer is the one I offer up to refute solipsism (which is what this thread is really all about), that being: I'm too fuckin' dumb to be imaginin' all the shit that seems to exist outside of, and apart from, me, so all that shit, in all its glory, must exist independent of me.

So, generalizing: If human beings are too stupid, too limited, too finite, to be consistently, coherently, collectively, imagining Reality into existence, then an object, any object, exists even when no one experiences or thinks of it.
There’s merit to your repudiation argument. Still I wonder if pleading dumbness is satisfactory. For every object that you experience, you have a word for it, even if the word is fuck-if-I-know. If you have a word for it, you have a thought about it. This would make you smart enough to be fooled that things still exist when you are not experiencing them.
Last edited by commonsense on Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Common

Post by henry quirk » Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:02 pm

This would make you smart enough to be fooled that things still exist when you are not experiencing them.

How so?

commonsense
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by commonsense » Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:03 pm

commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:01 am
commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm
.
...but we have no means at our disposal to actually prove it exists.

The problem I highlighted was about what happens to the apple when no one is looking.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:01 am
Considering 'you' are calling 'it' an "apple", implies or infers that 'it' remains an 'apple', even when there are no human beings looking at 'it', thee 'apple'.
commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm
.
I wrote the word “apple” as a (mistaken) matter of convenience.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:01 am
True, but 'you' could place a video camera there and record it, and then 'you' could see if it was there when 'you' were personally not looking at 'it'.
commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm
.
Interesting. However a Solopsist could claim that the camera and its images were imagined.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:01 am
you could also do other experiments to see and know if the thing known as an "apples" remains, or does some thing incomprehensible and/or magical, while 'you' are not looking at 'it'.
commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm
.
Honestly, I wonder if you have a few experiments in mind. If so, please share.
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:01 am
WHY would any one even really care if it was there or not there when they are not looking at it, anyway?

Do 'you' care about all of the other uncountable things also, when 'you' are not looking at them as well?

What is the actual point of this type of discussion about this type of issue, anyway?

And, what is the actual 'problem' when 'you' look at some thing and prove to "yourself" ONLY that it is there while 'you' are looking.

Are you SURE 'you' can NOT prove any thing?
commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm
.
Each of these questions seems to be making a point rather than asking for an answer. Thank you for spicing up the discussion with rhetorical questions such as these.
My apologies for breaking up the format.

commonsense
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by commonsense » Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:41 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:43 am


Human beings came to exist, or evolved into Existence, from other things.

Before human beings started existing there MUST OF been other things previously. (Unless, of course, 'you' BELIEVE otherwise.)

ALL 'things', by definition, are objects, so 'other things' also are objects.

Before human beings started existing obviously there were NO human beings experiencing and thinking.

Objects, therefore, MUST OF existed when NO human beings were yet experiencing or thinking, of ANY thing.

So, IF this is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, THEN an object exists even when NO human being experiences or thinks of it.
THANK YOU

This is what I needed to hear.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:38 am

Age wrote:
Do you trust and / or believe some things that are told to you by others

If yes then when you are not experiencing first hand a thing which is known as apple then
could that be at least one means to verify the existence of those things known as apples
I do not do belief of any kind although I might trust someone depending on how plausible the thing they were telling me was
I already know that apples exist so verification is not necessary but it might be for things whose existence is unknown to me

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: VA

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:01 am

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:41 pm
"You had merely assumed 'thing' pre-existed prior to comprehension."

With good reason. As I say: I'm too dumb to be imagining Reality, and all the things in Reality, into existence, so Reality, and all the things in Reality, must exist independent of me.

#

"So at what point or when is a thing, a 'thing?'"

When it sits there, lookin' at you, wonderin' why you don't bring it roses anymore.

#

"If we insist there is an original real 'thing' to start with, that is a delusion."

So you're a 'Steady State' guy.

#

"Humans are the most real as evident from one own experiences and inferring the mirror existence of other humans."

If apples only come into being when comprehended mebbe other people only come into being when comprehended. Mebbe Reality is just you imagining it. If so: as one of your imaginings, I have to say, you're doin' a piss-poor job of it.
The term 'comprehension' is your term not mine.
Things come into being spontaneously not when comprehended.
Other people also come into being spontaneously.

If things emerged spontaneously, it is not based on imagination.
One can imagine an apple in the mind, but there is no emergence of a real apple out there.

You have to reflect, is there such a thing existing independently by itself, i.e. a thing-in-itself or thing-by-itself?
The alternative is a thing existing with the human-self spontaneously, i.e. thing-with-human_self.
Btw, Kant - one of the greatest philosopher of all times - argued there is no thing-in-itself but there are things-with-human_selves.

The significance of the above thesis of Kant is, a thing-in-itself [as you are claiming] leads to all sorts of negative and evil acts emerging that has a negative impact on humanity.
One example is theism which believe in a God-in-itself, where certain theistic religions has killed more than 270 millions of non-believers throughout its history.
The idea of a thing-in-itself promote the us versus them impulse which induced the 'us' to kill the 'them' and vice versa.

Would you want to carry the burden of the above with your insistence there are things, i.e. things-in-themselves.

Age
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by Age » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:34 am

commonsense wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:52 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:44 am
commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:58 pm
...but we have no means at our disposal to actually prove it exists.

When a human experiences an apple, it certainly exists for that human, as long as that human accepts its own experience as evidence.

This acceptance, or assumption, is wholly dependent on the human.

If the human cannot accept/believe/trust his experience, he cannot function in the world he perceives.

So, to be a functional human being requires acceptance of one’s own experience as evidence or proof.

And when a human is not experiencing an apple, there is no means to verify the existence of apples.
Do 'you' trust and/or believe some things that are told to 'you', by "others"?

If yes, then when 'you' are not experiencing, firsthand, a thing, which is known as "apple", then could that be at least one means to verify the existence of those things known as "apples"?
Regarding your last question: strictly, no; practically, yes.
So, the one known as "commonsense" strictly does NOT trust nor believes some things that they are told.

But, actually the one known as "commonsense" practically does trust and/or believes some things that they are told.

Fair enough.

Age
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by Age » Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:06 pm

commonsense wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:03 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
...but we have no means at our disposal to actually prove it exists.

The problem I highlighted was about what happens to the apple when no one is looking.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
Considering 'you' are calling 'it' an "apple", implies or infers that 'it' remains an 'apple', even when there are no human beings looking at 'it', thee 'apple'.
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
I wrote the word “apple” as a (mistaken) matter of convenience.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
True, but 'you' could place a video camera there and record it, and then 'you' could see if it was there when 'you' were personally not looking at 'it'.
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
Interesting. However a Solopsist could claim that the camera and its images were imagined.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
you could also do other experiments to see and know if the thing known as an "apples" remains, or does some thing incomprehensible and/or magical, while 'you' are not looking at 'it'.
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
Honestly, I wonder if you have a few experiments in mind. If so, please share.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:01 am
WHY would any one even really care if it was there or not there when they are not looking at it, anyway?

Do 'you' care about all of the other uncountable things also, when 'you' are not looking at them as well?

What is the actual point of this type of discussion about this type of issue, anyway?

And, what is the actual 'problem' when 'you' look at some thing and prove to "yourself" ONLY that it is there while 'you' are looking.

Are you SURE 'you' can NOT prove any thing?
commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:37 am
.
Each of these questions seems to be making a point rather than asking for an answer. Thank you for spicing up the discussion with rhetorical questions such as these.
My apologies for breaking up the format.
My apologies for breaking up the format.
Firstly, WHY did 'you' break up the format?

And, WHY did 'you' NOT fix the format?

If 'you', A human being, which mistakenly calls its self a "solopsist"?, can claim ABSOLUTELY ANY THING. But without PROOF and EVIDENCE, then what are 'you/they' really basing that claim on exactly?

If a so called "solopsist" claims that the camera and its images are imagined, then WHY are they imagining it? Also, while they are 'it', that is; pondering, how about they also Answer, properly AND correctly, who/what exactly IS this 'self' thing, which is the ONLY thing they supposedly KNOW or BELIEVE exists?

I have ALREADY explained EXACTLY HOW that one is the ONLY thing that can be Truly KNOWN, 100% for sure. So, how about Answering 'My' questions also?

Since there is some thing wondering what if "another" thing has a few experiments, then that in itself infers the first 'self' is recognizing and/or somewhat BELIEVING there is some thing "other" than itself, just to begin with. Otherwise WHY would that 'self' wonder what "another" has?

Could 'you' feel the apple, while 'you' are NOT looking at it, to SEE and KNOW if the apple still remains existing? That is One example of just one experiment, which could be done. I am sure if that thing, known as "self", WORKED WITH the "other" things, also known as "selfs, which 'you', "yourself", were wondering what those "selfs" have in mind, then surely ALL of 'you' 'selfs' could imagine AND devise up some more other experiments. What does that 'self' reckon?

Are 'you' basing the supposed KNOWING here that I am making a point rather than just asking OPEN clarifying questions on some thing factual or some thing learned, or some thing both?

Age
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by Age » Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:18 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:38 am
Age wrote:
Do you trust and / or believe some things that are told to you by others

If yes then when you are not experiencing first hand a thing which is known as apple then
could that be at least one means to verify the existence of those things known as apples
I do not do belief of any kind although I might trust someone depending on how plausible the thing they were telling me was
I ALREADY KNOW that 'you', the one known as "surreptitiuous57" does NOT believe any such thing, nor any thing else.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:38 am
I already know that apples exist so verification is not necessary but it might be for things whose existence is unknown to me
I also ALREADY KNEW this about 'you', "surreptitiuous57", and so that is WHY I did NOT pose this nor the other question directly to 'you', "surreptitiuous57".

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: VA

Post by henry quirk » Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:29 pm

"is there such a thing existing independently by itself"

Here's what you got: A big, mostly empty, box (Reality or universe) with discrete, independently existing things in it. That's it, that's all. Mebbe there's an Architect to it all, mebbe not: either way you still got what you got which, again, is a big, mostly empty, box (Reality or universe) with discrete, independently existing things in it.

We, human beings, are counted as being among those independently existing things.

Ain't nuthin' in the thread disputing this.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:40 pm

Age wrote:
I also ALREADY KNEW this about you and so that is WHY I did NOT pose this nor the other question directly to you surreptitious57
Sometimes I like to answer questions that you ask of others for they are easier to answer than the ones you ask of me
And try if you can not to spell my name wrong since this is now at least the fourth time you have done this you know
Last edited by surreptitious57 on Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Age
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: VA

Post by Age » Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:43 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:01 am
henry quirk wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:41 pm
"You had merely assumed 'thing' pre-existed prior to comprehension."

With good reason. As I say: I'm too dumb to be imagining Reality, and all the things in Reality, into existence, so Reality, and all the things in Reality, must exist independent of me.

#

"So at what point or when is a thing, a 'thing?'"

When it sits there, lookin' at you, wonderin' why you don't bring it roses anymore.

#

"If we insist there is an original real 'thing' to start with, that is a delusion."

So you're a 'Steady State' guy.

#

"Humans are the most real as evident from one own experiences and inferring the mirror existence of other humans."

If apples only come into being when comprehended mebbe other people only come into being when comprehended. Mebbe Reality is just you imagining it. If so: as one of your imaginings, I have to say, you're doin' a piss-poor job of it.
The term 'comprehension' is your term not mine.
Things come into being spontaneously not when comprehended.
Other people also come into being spontaneously.

If things emerged spontaneously, it is not based on imagination.
One can imagine an apple in the mind, but there is no emergence of a real apple out there.

You have to reflect, is there such a thing existing independently by itself, i.e. a thing-in-itself or thing-by-itself?
The alternative is a thing existing with the human-self spontaneously, i.e. thing-with-human_self.
Btw, Kant - one of the greatest philosopher of all times - argued there is no thing-in-itself but there are things-with-human_selves.

ANY of 'you', adult human beings, CAN, so call, "argue", and "argue" absolutely ANY thing at all. However, if what is supposedly "argued" is actually sound AND valid is a completely other issue. Remember, ONLY SOUND and VALID arguments are an unambiguous, irrefutable Truth. By the way 'arguing' does NOT make 'you' a "great" nor LOL the "greatest philosopher" at all.

Just because 'you' BELIEVE and BELIEVE IN one human being does NOT make that obvious NOT any more remarkable than "another" human being the "greatest" philosopher at all. In fact just because 'you' worship that one insignificant human being even "great" at all. In fact, and if thee Truth be KNOWN, that insignificant human being known as a "kant" is NO better than ANY "other" human being is, EVER.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:01 am
The significance of the above thesis of Kant is, a thing-in-itself [as you are claiming] leads to all sorts of negative and evil acts emerging that has a negative impact on humanity.
Yet here it is 'you' claiming that if one "reflects" then things come to exist. So, why do 'you' NOT just "reflect" on the Peace AND Harmony of Humanity, instead of "reflecting on" and ALWAYS FOCUSING on the negative, evil, and violence, which 'you' "youself" are so PRONE to AND towards?

Actually if 'you' have NOT YET NOTICED, but which by the way, HAS BEEN OBVIOUSLY CLEAR is the supposed evil and violence PRONENESS of human beings, which is what 'you' SEE and mostly talk about, is just a REFLECTION of the 'you', which HATES "others", and WANTS to DESTROY them.

Also, because 'you' BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that what exists is SOLELY and ONLY because of what 'you' CONSTANTLY REFLECT ON, which is EVIL and VIOLENCE, then this IS the "reality" 'you' SEE, and CREATE for "yourself".
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:01 am
One example is theism which believe in a God-in-itself, where certain theistic religions has killed more than 270 millions of non-believers throughout its history.
The idea of a thing-in-itself promote the us versus them impulse which induced the 'us' to kill the 'them' and vice versa.
LOL, The absolutely contradictory AND back-to-front THINKING and SEEING here is absolutely hilarious to WATCH and OBSERVE.

But keep this up. The MORE examples 'you' provide, then the MORE evidence I am obtaining.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:01 am
Would you want to carry the burden of the above with your insistence there are things, i.e. things-in-themselves.
Some might ask 'you' the same but opposite thing;

Would you want to carry the burden of the above with your insistence the things that really do exist, that is; the evil and violent acts, is because of 'you' and because of how 'you' have brought them into "reality" or "existence"?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests