Mental Reality Theory vs External Reality Theory: Checkmate

_{William Murray

August 4, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

All experience is mental, regardless of whether or not anything extra-mental causes or informs it.
We can only ever directly interact with and experience mental experience/phenomena.
We have direct, empirical evidence mind exists and that is the only thing we can have such evidence exists, even in principle.
What we actually experience as “reality” is thus necessarily, entirely mental (again, whether or not anything extra-mental causes or informs it.)
Thus, “mental reality,” the mental world that we all live in, is not a theory; it is an undeniable fact of our existence. The only relevant question is if an additional, extra-mental “world” exists that our mental reality interacts with in any meaningful way.
Since mental reality is an experiential and logical fact, it does not have to be supported by argument or evidence any more than “I exist” needs to be supported.
The proposed existence of extra-mental phenomena that interacts meaningfully with mind cannot be empirically experienced as such. Thus, this proposition requires rational argument and/or evidence to support it.
All evidence that is gathered can only be experienced as mental phenomena and thus is necessarily congruent with mental reality theory, otherwise it could not be experienced mentally (if it can be experienced mentally, it necessarily can be generated mentally.)
All rational arguments for the existence of an external physical world originate and operate entirely within mind and strictly obey the rules and principles of mind.
As per #’s 1, 8 & 9, such argument can only ever be about mental experience using mental capacities, following mental rules in making any argument, reaching a conclusion contained entirely within mind.
Given all the above, there can never be, even in principle, evidence gathered or rational argument presented to support the existence of extra-mental reality that can distinguish it from mental reality.
Thus, belief in an extra-mental reality is necessarily irrational because (1) it cannot be directly experienced, (2) no evidence can be gathered that can distinguish it from mental reality, and (3) no rational argument can be levied in support of it that does not innately rely upon that supposed “external world” being entirely consonant with, indeed subordinate to, the entirely mental nature of logical principles and processes.

Belief in any kind of extra-mental world is unsupportable, unwarranted, unnecessary, without even the potential for evidence, and thus entirely irrational. In effect, the “external, physical world” perspective can only ever be an irrational belief in an imaginary world – or perhaps more appropriately, a delusion.

8.4.20 10:05 am Edited for clarity: last paragraph.

Comments

Origenes:
However this alleged modesty doesn’t square with claims such as:
I've told you why I made my arguments and what they are about. If you want to accept that move forward from that point, let me know.William J Murray_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PST}

WJM@
Perhaps the troubling question here is, why make an argument against ERT and not non-solipsism? Isn’t it the same argument? That question depends on why I’m making the argument. I’m not making the argument to disprove the existence an external, independent-of-mind material world; that can’t be done. I also cannot disprove or prove or disprove that other minds exist. The purpose of the argument was to establish that, logically, all a conscious, sentient being has to work with at all is mental experience. That’s it.
We agree completely, assuming that you are talking about individual mental experience. As you have said: “You cannot escape the prison of your own personal, conscious experience.”
It doesn’t even matter if such an external world actually exists or not; it doesn’t matter if other individuals exist or not; that’s all a conscious, sentient beings has, period. This true under solipsism or non-solipsism.
Yes. But how does this establish anything more than “I exist”?
But, this was not the end of my total argument; it was the logical beginning that established the logical inescapability of MRT.
To be clear, we are still talking about the logical inescapability of solipsistic MRT.
I followed this argument up a couple of months later with my post, Outlining A Functional Mental Reality Theory, and then a few days later with “The Boy Who Cried “Solipsism:” The MRT Delusion Objection Is Unfounded.” to specifically address the solipsism and delusion criticisms. In Outlining A Functional Mental Reality Theory, I made the case for how an MRT could embrace all of the functionality and usefulness of any ERT, and provide for the possibility of even more functionality and usefulness, without necessarily indicating solipsism. IOW, I provided for “how” other individuals could exist under MRT. When objections were raised there, a few days later I made the solipsism post where I explicitly stated that the only bulwark against solipsism under any worldview was faith that other individuals actually exist, and that any MRT is no different. It doesn’t insist they exist; it shows how they can exist and how we can be interacting with them.
You have shown that MRT can explain other minds and can explain the perception of an external material world. IOWs that MRT can possibly be true. OK.
The purpose of the theory is not to make ontological claims about what does and does not exist as if true and provable; the purpose – as i have said – is to provide what may be a more useful model of that existence based on what is inescapably true: mental reality is what a sentient being necessarily, inescapably lives in whether or not any external material world exists or not, and yes, Origenes, whether or not other individual minds exist.
A sentient being necessarily inescapably lives in his own personal mental reality. The self-evident truth “I exist”, conscious self-awareness, does not “necessarily, inescapably” extend to a shared mental world. You say that you have not attempted to prove such, and instead just provided some useful models. However this alleged modesty doesn’t square with claims such as:
IMO, the phrase “we live in a mental reality,” once properly understood, is realized as a self-evident truth.
and
Thus, “mental reality,” the mental world that we all live in, is not a theory; it is an undeniable fact of our existence.
- - - - -
I asked you a question I don’t think you answered: what utility value is there in solipsism?
None.Origenes_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PST}

Origens said:
And now you tell me that I am a ‘mind reader’ for assuming that you are arguing in favor of a non-solipsistic MRT? Really?
No, I'm saying you're engaging in mind-reading because you continue to insist that I was arguing for non-solipsism even after I corrected you. You're doing exactly what KF does, insisting that my words necessarily refer or appeal to something no matter how many times I correct him.William J Murray_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PST}

Perhaps the troubling question here is, why make an argument against ERT and not non-solipsism? Isn't it the same argument? That question depends on why I'm making the argument. I'm not making the argument to disprove the existence an external, independent-of-mind material world; that can't be done. I also cannot disprove or prove or disprove that other minds exist. The purpose of the argument was to establish that, logically, all a conscious, sentient being has to work with at all is mental experience. That's it. It doesn't even matter if such an external world actually exists or not; it doesn't matter if other individuals exist or not; that's all a conscious, sentient beings has, period. This true under solipsism or non-solipsism. But, this was not the end of my total argument; it was the logical beginning that established the logical inescapability of MRT. I followed this argument up a couple of months later with my post, Outlining A Functional Mental Reality Theory, and then a few days later with "The Boy Who Cried “Solipsism:” The MRT Delusion Objection Is Unfounded." to specifically address the solipsism and delusion criticisms. In Outlining A Functional Mental Reality Theory, I made the case for how an MRT could embrace all of the functionality and usefulness of any ERT, and provide for the possibility of even more functionality and usefulness, without necessarily indicating solipsism. IOW, I provided for "how" other individuals could exist under MRT. When objections were raised there, a few days later I made the solipsism post where I explicitly stated that the only bulwark against solipsism under any worldview was faith that other individuals actually exist, and that any MRT is no different. It doesn't insist they exist; it shows how they can exist and how we can be interacting with them. The purpose of the theory is not to make ontological claims about what does and does not exist as if true and provable; the purpose - as i have said - is to provide what may be a more useful model of that existence based on what is inescapably true: mental reality is what a sentient being necessarily, inescapably lives in whether or not any external material world exists or not, and yes, Origenes, whether or not other individual minds exist. I asked you a question I don't think you answered: what utility value is there in solipsism? I meant that question non-rhetorically. If solipsism was a more useful model for me, I'd adopt it in a heartbeat. I'd honestly love it if someone can provide me any useful model. I'm not wedded to my views and I have several different models I use in various situations for different reasons. I'm always open to adopting a more useful model. To me, there is no reason to argue for solipsism because it cannot be successfully argued for or against logically, by evidence, or by what is important to me: usefulness. Non-solipsism is far, far more useful to me because it provides me with enormous enjoyment to hold that I'm actually interacting with other sentient individuals and solipsism just drains the enjoyment out of everything.William J Murray_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PST}

WJM
Nope, I never made any argument for non-solipsistic MRT
In the OP you have made it clear that the MRT you are talking about is non-solipsistic. For instance ...
Thus, “mental reality,” the mental world that we all live in, is not a theory; it is an undeniable fact of our existence.
... points to non-solipsistic MRT. Further, the title of the OP makes perfectly clear that you make an argument in favor of (non-solipsistic) MRT. You say you "never made any argument for non-solipsistic MRT" ... You gave me a link to another article by you, in which you state:
IMO, the phrase “we live in a mental reality,” once properly understood, is realized as a self-evident truth.
If that is not making an argument for non-solipsistic MRT, then nothing is. [my comment here]
No, it doesn’t [your MRT doesn't postulate the existence of other minds]. I have in a few cases made the logical arguments for the possibility of other minds under MRT. Now you’re doing exactly what KF does; asserting that you know what argument I’m making better than I do. I guess you’re a mind reader as well.
When I told you I wanted to understand your MRT you provided a link to an article by you. In the article you present an MRT which postulates the existence of "innumerable individuals", and you make the claim that “we live in a mental reality” is a self-evident truth. Moreover, in this article, you continually argue from the "we"-perspective. And now you tell me that I am a ‘mind reader’ for assuming that you are arguing in favor of a non-solipsistic MRT? Really?Origenes_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PST}

Origenes said:
In the OP you make two claims: (1.) The belief in ERT has no rational basis. (2.) ERT lacking rational basis implies a win for (non-solipsistic) MRT.
Nope, I never made any argument for non-solipsistic MRT, other than to provide for its possibility.
All I did was noting that your MRT postulates the existence of other minds..
No, it doesn't. I have in a few cases made the logical arguments for the possibility of other minds under MRT. Now you're doing exactly what KF does; asserting that you know what argument I'm making better than I do. I guess you're a mind reader as well. I've shown explicit evidence that in 2020 I stated outright than non-solipsism cannot be argued or evidenced, that it is always a faith-based perspective. Yet here you are claiming that I was arguing FOR non-solipsism. Can you just not take correction? Is it important to you for some reason to hang on to the idea that you've discovered some "flaw" in my MRT? I mean, what's the deal here?William J Murray_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PST}

Vivid said:
It appears that non solipsism MRT and ERT both are irrational according to WJM’s reasoning..
Uh ... you didn't need my reasoning to get there. Non-solipsism is ultimately irrational under ANY worldview, and I've already said so. I said so as far back as Oct. 2020. I mean, if you and Origenes whan to believe you've found some solipsism flaw in my MRT, then believe as you wish, but it's something I've already stated explicitly.William J Murray_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PST}

Origenes “Surely if your MRT position was solipsistic the objection I am making would be invalid. But instead you claim victory for a non-solipsistic MRT, while wielding arguments which only be fended off by solipsism.” It appears that non solipsism MRT and ERT both are irrational according to WJM’s reasoning.. Vividvividbleau_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST}

WJM
WJM: As I already pointed out (...) whether or not other minds exist is entirely irrelevant to the validity of the argument I present in the OP. (...) Change the “we” to “I” and the argument remains valid.
In the OP you make two claims: (1.) The belief in ERT has no rational basis. (2.) ERT lacking rational basis implies a win for (non-solipsistic) MRT. If you refer by “the argument I present in the OP” only to (1.), then you are correct. However you leave out (2.) which is invalid, since it is based on selective application of your argument.
Solipsism is still an MRT.
I was waiting for you to say this. Indeed solipsism is the only position that can withstand your arguments. One argument you wield is that there is no rational basis for the belief in the existence of X, unless X can be "experienced directly." Obviously, if that is correct, then only solipsism has a rational basis. Surely if your MRT position was solipsistic the objection I am making would be invalid. But instead you claim victory for a non-solipsistic MRT, while wielding arguments which only be fended off by solipsism. ----
I did not here make the argument that other minds actually. necessarily exist; I’ve made that clear a couple of times now.
You did, and I have no idea why. Never have I argued that you make the argument that other minds actually necessarily exist. All I did was noting that your MRT postulates the existence of other minds; in fact “innumerable” other minds.Origenes_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PST}

One of the posts where I provided for the existence of other self-aware individuals was my "Boy Who Cried Solipsism" post. That was not an argument that other such individuals exist, but rather that MRT allows for their existence.William J Murray_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PST}

Origenes, You know how KF picks out certain words or phrases used in an argument about X concept, then responds to those words as if they represent an entirely different concept, as if those words are central to the argument instead of just being used to present or articulate the argument? How he seems totally oblivious to the actual concept being argued? IOW, he jumps on words and phrases to present a rebuttal to an argument the other guy never made? That's what you're apparently doing here. I did not here make the argument that other minds actually. necessarily exist; I've made that clear a couple of times now. I've produced some other arguments (not here) that provide, under MRT, for the existence of other sentient, self aware beings, but it doesn't mean MRT is dependent on them existing.William J Murray_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PST}

Origenes said:
Why are the arguments equally damaging to the alleged winner MRT? If we apply WJM’s arguments to MRT, then, given their correctness, they show that there is no rational basis for the belief in the existence of other minds (see @71). To say that this is damaging to MRT is perhaps understating the matter, since the existence of other minds (innumerable individuals in fact) is central to MRT — ‘we live in a mental reality.’
As I already pointed out as far back as October 2010 ( a couple of months after I made this post,) whether or not other minds exist is entirely irrelevant to the validity of the argument I present in the OP. Using the terms "we" and "our" etc. in presenting the argument here does not constitute my including in the argument that other minds necessarily exist. Change the "we" to "I" and the argument remains valid. Solipsism is still an MRT. I personally hold that other individual, conscious perspectives exist, which is why I used those terms. MRT allows for the existence of other such self-aware, free will beings. Most MRTs hold the same.William J Murray_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PST}

Why WJM’s argument is invalid: WJM makes the argument that there is no rational basis for the belief in an “external, physical world” [ERT], and goes on to claim a win for his Mental Reality Theory [MRT] — “Mental Reality Theory Vs External Reality Theory: Checkmate” WJM on ERT:
(…) unsupportable, unwarranted, unnecessary, without even the potential for evidence, and thus entirely irrational. In effect, the “external, physical world” perspective can only ever be an irrational belief in an imaginary world – or perhaps more appropriately, a delusion.
The problem for WJM is that, on closer inspection, all the arguments he wields against ERT are equally damaging to the alleged winner MRT. This means that the “win” by MRT over ERT is a false illusion created by applying the arguments unevenly; that is by only focusing on ERT. Why are the arguments equally damaging to the alleged winner MRT? If we apply WJM’s arguments to MRT, then, given their correctness, they show that there is no rational basis for the belief in the existence of other minds (see @71). To say that this is damaging to MRT is perhaps understating the matter, since the existence of other minds (innumerable individuals in fact) is central to MRT — ‘we live in a mental reality.’ In post @72 WJM acknowledges:
WJ Murray: Yes, the belief in other minds as ontologically true is necessarily irrational, just as the belief in an external, independent material world as ontologically true is necessarily irrational. That doesn’t mean either is not true; it just means there is no rational basis for that belief.
Concluding, WJM’s argument present problems for ERT and MRT equally. By applying his argument solely to ERT, WJM creates the misconception that his argument only presents a problem for ERT and the illusion of a win (Checkmate) by MRT over ERT.Origenes_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PST}

WJ Murray @80: Good luck with that.Origenes_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PST}

Origenes @79, No, that's not my argument.William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PST}

The argument:
Jack the Ripper vs Ted Bundy: Checkmate Killing multiple people is wrong. Ted Bundy killed multiple people, therefore he is wrong. Jack the Ripper wins!
Me: why don’t you apply the same argument against Jack the Ripper? You: Because whether or not Jack the Ripper is wrong is irrelevant to the argument against Bundy.Origenes_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PST}

Origenes said:
I am not evaluating your MRT theory, I am evaluating your argument against ERT in your article.
Then what is this:
The argument you present, assuming it is valid, is damaging to ... MRT.
Even if you were successful in that argument, what does that have to do with my argument against ERT, if all you were doing was evaluating is my argument against ERT?
Why do you exempt other minds from the exact same criticism and go on to proclaim “Checkmate”?
Because whether or not other minds exist is irrelevant to the argument.William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PST}

@WJM All you do is to create an incoherent intractible conceptual mess. And you basically admit as much, in admitting all the problems you have with it. The basic logic used in common discourse works fine. So you undermine the logic used in common discourse, by changing definitions of words, and replace the logic of common discourse with something you don't understand yourself. That is just irresponsible. But I guess the word irresponsible becomes a total questionmark in your theory as well, just like everything else becomes a questionmark in your theory.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PST}

WJM, here I have attempted to summarize your MRT theory.Origenes_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PST}

WJM The argument you present, assuming it is valid, is damaging to both ERT and MRT. By focussing only on ERT, applying it only to ERT, you leave (much) room for the misconception that your argument only presents a problem for ERT. You even go as far as claiming victory ("Checkmate") for MRT over ERT.
WJM: Again, my theories are about usefulness, not about gleaning ontological truths.
I am not evaluating your MRT theory, I am evaluating your argument against ERT in your article.Origenes_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PST}

Origenes @73, Under solipsism, to whom would I be proclaiming "Checkmate?" Who would I be presenting my argument to? How would solipsism be a useful theory, or potentially more useful than a non-solipsistic perspective? Again, my theories are about usefulness, not about gleaning ontological truths.William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PST}

WJM@72
Yes, the belief in other minds as ontologically true is necessarily irrational, just as the belief in an external, independent material world as ontologically true is necessarily irrational. That doesn’t mean either is not true; it just means there is no rational basis for that belief. (...) In any coherent existential theory, the only bulwark against solipsism is faith; that that other actual individuals with free will and their own mental experience exist.
If you are correct about there being neither a rational basis for the belief in an external world nor for the belief in other minds, then why are you wielding that sword solely against an external world? Why do you exempt other minds from the exact same criticism and go on to proclaim "Checkmate"?Origenes_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PST}

Origenes @71: Did you read my comment at 67 before writing #71? If so, what do you mean by "belief" in #71? Yes, the belief in other minds as ontologically true is necessarily irrational, just as the belief in an external, independent material world as ontologically true is necessarily irrational. That doesn't mean either is not true; it just means there is no rational basis for that belief. As I said in my Oct. 2020 post: The Boy Who Cried “Solipsism:” The MRT Delusion Objection Is Unfounded, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-boy-who-cried-solipsism-the-mrt-delusion-objection-is-unfounded/ :
In any coherent existential theory, the only bulwark against solipsism is faith; that that other actual individuals with free will and their own mental experience exist. All any theory has to do to avoid this is to simply provide a reasonable model that allows for the existence of other conscious, free will people, and faith that this is so does the rest of the work.
William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PST}

William J Murray@ You offer arguments in support of the claim that a “belief in an extra-mental [external physical] reality is necessarily irrational.” I put it to you that all your arguments are equally valid against the belief in other minds. Like this: The belief in the existence of other minds is necessarily irrational, because: (1) They cannot be directly experienced, (2) No evidence can be gathered that can distinguish them from my mental reality (3) No rational argument can be levied in support of them that does not innately rely upon that supposed “other minds” being entirely consonant with, indeed subordinate to, the entirely mental nature of logical principles and processes in my mind. I take it, that you reject the possibility that the belief in other minds is “necessarily irrational”. Yet you stand with arguments which, given that they are valid, would prove that this is exactly the case.Origenes_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PST}

Let's look at it t his way, if you will: "Gravity" is a useful model of experiential patterns. "Entropy" is a useful model of experiential patterns. ERT is a useful model of experiential patterns. The meaningful question is, is MRT a useful model of experiential patterns? If so, how so?William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PST}

I'm not pursuing a "True" model, Origenes. I'm pursuing situationally effective and useful models.William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PST}

It is useful for me, in my experience, to model some of my experiences as being that of other individual minds. It is useful for me, much of the time, to operate and talk from the ERT perspective. IT is useful for me, as a kind of overarching perspective, to think in terms of MRT. Yes, I can have several contradictory models operating at the same time because it's about the situational usefulness of the models, not about whether or not they represent or can be cobbled together into some kind of unified truth.William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PST}

Origenes, For me, "belief" entirely means "a perspective that may or may not be true, but which in my experience seems to be useful." It does not mean "holding a perspective to be true." Other people appear to have a different view of what belief means; belief for other people appears to me to mean "holding something to be true." In THAT sense of belief, I do not believe or disbelieve in an external, independent world; and I do not believe or disbelieve in the existence of independent, other people external of my own mind.William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PST}

MNY @63,
I move that we require people to define words the same as their meaning in common discourse, or if different, than to make known it is different, and explain the difference.
There is no "common discourse" definitions available for MRT that is not rooted in ERT, as far as I know. I've tried defining what I mean by using certain terms; it doesn't make any difference unless the other person is making the effort to understand. I'm not here to prove or defend MRT. I'll explain it if people want, if they're willing to make the effort. I'll talk about it (as I did in making this post) because I enjoy doing that, and because doing so helps me to understand it better. But I'm certainly not going to abide your personal rules for interacting and talking and using definitions. If you don't like it, I guess you'll just have to deal with it however you choose.William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PST}

WJM @59
My argument is not that my individual perspective is the only one in existence, (…)
Indeed, you continually argue from a “we” living in a shared mental reality. You offer no support for the validity of that viewpoint.
Thus, “mental reality,” the mental world that we all live in, is not a theory; it is an undeniable fact of our existence.
There is no obvious mental world we all live in. Instead what is obvious is: “I live in my mental world”. As you said yourself in another thread: "You cannot escape the prison of your own personal, conscious experience "
Since mental reality is an experiential and logical fact, it does not have to be supported by argument or evidence any more than “I exist” needs to be supported.
No, it is my personal mental reality that does not have to be supported by argument or evidence any more than “I exist”, since it is arguably the same thing. However the claim “we live in a (shared) mental reality” does need support.
(…) just as my argument is not that an external, material world does not exist.
Your conclusion is that the belief in the existence of an external material world is “necessarily irrational.” Ok, that may not be the exact same as saying that it does not exist, but it is close. If you prefer I drop the term solipsism and rephrase my claim as follows: Your arguments, that the belief in the existence of an external physical world is necessarily irrational, are equally valid as arguments that the belief in the existence of other minds is necessarily irrational.Origenes_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PST}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply