Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hypothetically, if scientific consensus became that objects do not exist independent of consciousness, could Objectivism stand?

Rate this topic


Frank

Recommended Posts

In Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Peikoff implied that challenges from science could not necessarily refute Objectivism, because even if science found something outlandish, like all things are puffs of meta energy, we still would be perceiving things made of this energy, and we're made of it, too. So, nothing changes for Objectivism. 

What about a more daunting challenge, like that scientific consensus becomes that objects do not exist independent of consciousness?

This is a regular claim that pops up every few years. Below are a couple examples. I don't think they actually prove this point, but clearly this is something people think about as potentially possible.

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a40460495/objective-reality-may-not-exist/

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

Edited by Frank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the definition of hypothetically as an adverb:

adverb
by imagining a possibility rather than reality; as a hypothesis.
"we talked hypothetically about how cool it would be if we moved"

Look at the first part of imagining a possibility, in conjunction with rather than reality. There are at least two ways to take that. 

1.) Imagining a possibility that is reality based.

2.) Imagining a possibility that is not reality based.

Feed in the 'more daunting challenge'. 

Scientific consensus becomes that objects do not exist independent of consciousness.

Identify what a consensus is. 

It is a noun meaning:
a general agreement.

Remember why you don't step out in front of a speeding, oncoming truck. (You'll be struck by an unforgiving nemesis, an absolute reality.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Frank,

I have pondered this question a lot myself. In my experience, O'ist arguments against the primacy of consciousness can be divided into four classes:

1. The 'Analytic' Argument

Analytic judgements are allegedly true in virtue of the word's definition, e.g., 'all triangles have three sides'. In this example, the arguing party will uncritically assume the following definition of consciousness: 'being aware of things which are independent of consciousness itself' - and will provide the 'analytic' argument:

Consciousness means being conscious of something; Existence precedes consciousness. Q.E.D

Ironically, arguing from definitions and/or upholding the 'analytic-synthetic' dichotomy is an argumentation error which O'ists call rationalism.

2. The Anstoß Argument

Anstoß is a philosophical term introduced by a famous idealist philosopher to designate an obstacle, hindrance, or 'something that offends freedom'. The Objectivist argument goes like this: I can't choose to not see the color green; no matter how much I try, I see it all around. I can't even control my own sense-perception, so the limitation must be rooted in the nature of some physical organ.

However, arguing from common-sense is not an argument at all. For example, because visual perceptions exhibit color, people have long assumed that things 'out-there' really are colored. Philosophy and science are supposed to free us from such errors of common-sense, not to defend them. 'Limitation' does not logically imply that the limit is caused by something outside of consciousness itself.

3. Argumentum ad Peikoffum

A (mistaken) O'ist characterization of Kant's philosophy is that Kant declared consciousness to be invalid because it has identity, or because it must process knowledge. In a twist of irony, Objectivists sometimes drop this charge altogheter, and replace it with its opposite: that idealists do not believe that consciousness has identity. Then, they go on to argue that if consciousness has no identity, it does not operate lawfully, and hence A is not A. Oh my Aristotle!

However, a closer examination of Idealism will reveal that, in such systems, consciousness exists, is an instance of identity, knows of itself, has an 'in-itself' external to conscious experience (self-in-itself, ParaBrahman), that it operates by necessary laws, and that such facts are true even if consciousness itself denies them. Oh, did I mention that many idealists got into trouble due to charges of atheism, and that, although the charges were false, idealistic atheism is a real thing? 

Things like these are not difficult to find if one simply scans the first pages of any important idealist system:

Quote

"The presupposition of idealism will, therefore, be as follows: the intellect acts, but owing to its nature, it can only act in a certain fashion. [...] This, then, also renders immediately intelligible the feeling of necessity that accompanies certain presentations: for here the intellect does not register some external impression, but feels in this action the limits of its own being. [...] A transcendent idealism would be a system that deduced determinate presentations from the free and totally lawless action of the intellect; a completely contradictory hypothesis, for surely, as has just been remarked, the principle of grounding is inapplicable to such an action."

- J. G. Fichte, The Science of Knowledge, p. 21-22 (Cambridge University Press)

(This comes from a philosopher that didn't even believe in Kant's thing-in-itself, let alone in a mind-independent world.)

4. The 'System' Argument

According to some Objectivists, if the mind creates its world, then A is no longer A, capitalism is false, rationality is useless, chickens will take over humans as the master-race, and Kalman's operettas are pessimistic-propaganda in disguise.

However, most systematic idealist philosophies start with the world and its laws (the same world and laws which are meticulously described by Peikoff in OPAR), then proceed to give a transcendental account of how this world arises from consciousness. This means that, yes, the Objectivist ethics, politics etc, can be 100% true even if they are grounded in the laws of some mind-in-itself.

I actually made a case like this a few months ago when I posted an outline of Schelling's 1800 System. Schelling takes the cue from Kant's conception of genius, namely that artists create in a lawful manner, bound by certain strict laws, yet without actually learning those laws beforehand. According to him, this makes art sui-generis, because even the scientific discoveries of geniuses like Newton can still be attributed to methods of investigation which are available to everyone. According to Schelling, the mind-in-itself is precisely such an artist, unwittingly finding itself in the spatio-temporal world of mechanical causation as a result of its striving to represent itself. My point was that this metaphysical view still leads Schelling to OPAR's familiar features, such as the stress on adjusting nature to man by using reason to penetrate its laws, and many other nice things. The reception was lukewarm; there were some great replies, which addressed the notion of 'conditions for possibility'. Apart from that, some people got hung up on how I used a certain word, or on whether I'm talking smack about Objectivism's reception of Kant - completely missing the actual purpose of the thread. Looks like this subject has resurfaced in this thread, with Schelling being replaced by quantum physics.

----
To conclude, Frank, I noticed that this particular subject is of great interest to you (since many of your threads are dedicated to this aspect of metaphysics). I think that, if OPAR's arguments did not satisfy you, you're likely going to find the same unsatisfying arguments on this forum as well. My advice to you is to either study idealism (which will help you identify precisely what is causing your dissatisfaction with OPAR), or to look for articles written by Objectivists who have studied idealism themselves, because not everybody who studied O'ism in depth is automatically able to give you an O'ist critique of every metaphysical view, unless they are acquainted with said theories.

Edited by KyaryPamyu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

According to some Objectivists, if the mind creates its world, then A is no longer A, capitalism is false, rationality is useless, chickens will take over humans as the master-race, and Kalman's operettas are pessimistic-propaganda in disguise.

One cannot precede the other, I would agree.
Up does not precede down. But if there is up, there is down.
Similarly, consciousness and existence are concomitants.

Awareness by definition is awareness of something.
Even if it is awareness of awareness, then it is aware of something ... within everything i.e. existence.
Something can't be "a" nothing that is created, as nothing is not something ... otherwise a contradiction.

Primacy in this context does not mean one precedes the other as in: first one then the other. 
It means: One cannot/should not consider one before or without the other.

As in, first there was consciousness. And then came existence. 
The implication is that time existed as in ... first this then that.
That in itself implies existence ... of time and of existence.

Existence is "necessary" for consciousness to exist, epistemologically speaking.
Consciousness is synonymous with being or "I am".
Without existence, how can you "be" if "you are not"? 
How can you be when you don't exist?

If consciousness is all there is, then contradictions exist. That is the problem with the primacy of consciousness. 
There is no delineation between contradiction within consciousness vs. outside of consciousness.
Nonsense would "exist" in the same way, shape, and form as things that make sense.

The bottom line, contradictions DO exist, but in the mind. They don't exist in the world outside/independent of the mind. 
Outside and inside are all metaphors in this context because there are no "spacial/physical" borders in the mind. 
It's not like one thought bangs against another. 
It is as if they do. 
Meaning mental entities don't exist, but they exist as metaphors or concepts. And they are valid/(they exist) in that context.

So, to argue that everything is consciousness does not account for that delineation. It argues for the nonsensical as being sensical.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

It means: One cannot/should not consider one before or without the other.

 

Maybe you didn't intend this but it sounds like a form of substance dualism. Seems like you are saying there is the realm of existence, and the realm of consciousness, and existence came about first. I might be misreading you. But it goes more to the point if you say "existence is all there is". 

8 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

The reception was lukewarm; there were some great replies, which addressed the notion of 'conditions for possibility'. Apart from that, some people got hung up on how I used a certain word, or on whether I'm talking smack about Objectivism's reception of Kant - completely missing the actual purpose of the thread.

That's not quite what happened. What happened was mostly that to the extent 2046 was pushing you to think harder about what you described as academic technicalities, you were not receptive to engaging him on that level - even though that is your level of engagement on these topics. Not trying to start anything here, just be aware that most of the time, people do engage with you about topics of substance. Sometimes your points aren't clear, which happens with anyone, so yes, people will sometimes miss the purpose of what you say. 

17 hours ago, Frank said:

What about a more daunting challenge, like that scientific consensus becomes that objects do not exist independent of consciousness?

Kyary I think is right about the way that Oist arguments against primacy of consciousness don't always at the mark. Really, the best way to think about things is that Oism on a metaphysical level says that existence is all that there is, and there is nothing besides. When we talk about anything, we are already talking about the way that it exists, its manner of existing. To say that objects only come into reality as tangible/physically real things because of consciousness would be to say that there is something distinct from existence underlying everything that is. 

This isn't an answer or argument, but it might help to consider this: can you actually conceive of nonexistence? Whatever you say about consciousness, no matter how new age-y you get, you will have to be talking about existence. But to go full primacy of consciousness would be to say that there is a realm of being besides existence, and that a realm of nonexistence is conceivable or thinkable. Sure we can toy around with different ideas, come up with bizarre thoughts, come up with contradictory ideas, but they all have to do with existence. 

Really, science would not be able to say if objects could exist independent of consciousness. That relies on an underlying philosophical premise that precedes science in the first place.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

It means: One cannot/should not consider one before or without the other.

 

Maybe you didn't intend this but it sounds like a form of substance dualism. Seems like you are saying there is the realm of existence, and the realm of consciousness, and existence came about first. I might be misreading you. But it goes more to the point if you say "existence is all there is". 

Yes, but how do you differentiate between a "contradiction exists", and yet does not?

You may say a contradiction does not exist. Yet you use the word. You refer to "something" ... that does not exist.

In other words, contradictions are part of  "all that there is" but they are mental entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Instead of asking about a hypothetical future (which likely is impossible) just look at the reality of the past.

When belief in the supernatural as an actual fact was the overwhelming consensus, independent thought in individuals “stood” and in certain circles prevailed.

That approach could be dark, and last for ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Easy Truth said:

You may say a contradiction does not exist. Yet you use the word. You refer to "something" ... that does not exist.

A contradiction is a type of statement, which exists, but a contradictory entity itself does not exist, and is not even conceivable. "A tree that is not a tree" does not even exist in your imagination, partly because by referencing anything at all, you are referring to existence. That's why the most intense believers in primacy of consciousness not only believe that there is a God with aspects beyond human comprehension, but that God himself has no form of existence except as pure action. Quite literally, they think that nonexistence is real.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Frank said:

I read this article.  (The first article had a barrier to reading it.)

It is misleading to say that Wigner's detection of a superposition indicates there was no measurement at all.  What it indicates is that there was no measurement whose result was detected by Wigner or his equipment.  There is no contradiction between the two views.

In my view, the talk about how things only become real when measured conflates measurement conducted deliberately by a reasoning entity with the more general category of interactions that force something into a particular state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

"A tree that is not a tree" does not even exist in your imagination, partly because by referencing anything at all, you are referring to existence.

Agreed. But there is another kind of contradiction: The Mistake. One does not know if it is a contradiction, but it is held in the mind as referencing something that exists. It takes drilling down to determine that it is a contradiction.

But ... there are other concepts that are valid, that exist yet do not. Like the concept of "nothing". Or even non-existence. We use the word non-existence, it is "something", but not out there. How would one not equivocate, unless consciousness is not existence?

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

That's why the most intense believers in primacy of consciousness not only believe that there is a God with aspects beyond human comprehension, but that God himself has no form of existence except as pure action. Quite literally, they think that nonexistence is real. 

That's interesting, I did not know that, which related to the next question I was about to ask the OP. If existence is entirely consciousness, who's is it? Like does that mean science will determine that you are all in my dream? Cool! I'm all for it. And I'm not supernatural either. I always knew that was what was really going on. Just didn't have sufficient knowledge to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Frank said:

In Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Peikoff implied that challenges from science could not necessarily refute Objectivism, because even if science found something outlandish, like all things are puffs of meta energy, we still would be perceiving things made of this energy, and we're made of it, too. So, nothing changes for Objectivism. 

That is not at all what that section of OPAR (45-6) is saying. He doesn’t say anything about anything’s being outlandish, that is not what “meta puffs” refer to, but a stand-in for whatever the fundamental particle or building blocks of matter is supposed to be. 
 

And the point he’s trying to make isn’t that whatever the fundamental particle turns out to be, it “doesn’t refute Objectivism,” he says it doesn’t have any philosophical significance. I think this is false if taken in the literal sense, because whether or not there even can be a fundamental building block of matter, and what matter is, is itself a question for philosophy of nature. But anyways, that’s not the point of that section “sensory qualities as real.”

But more to your question: what if the scientific consensus were such and such, would that be a problem, well only if you assume scientism were true. Scientism here meaning something in the neighborhood of “truth is just what the scientific consensus says it is.” If that’s not true, then it’s not a problem for any philosophy necessarily, not just Objectivism.
 

Anyways, in general what science even is and what methods it employs and question it should be addressed is also itself discussed in philosophy. So without answering those questions, the further downstream question of what is objectivism’s relationship to scientific consensus is not really helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

O'ist arguments against the primacy of consciousness can be divided into four classes:

Is this a good way of processing philosophical arguments? Only if this parallel piece of reasoning is also good:

Idealist arguments against the primacy of existence can be divided into … Idealists say… Some idealists appeal to So-and-so’s authority but we all know that’s a stupid fallacy… idealists often argue… 

Where the ellipses are you can substitute some apparently dumb thing. Note how I never cite any idealist specifically, and never name anyone specific. If pressed I can just say “well that’s what I’ve heard them say” in conversations or online or something. What a great philosopher I am, it’s tough being such a good philosopher like me!

Note I don’t think there’s not a point to be made about Rand or Peikoff’s depth of treatment of any of these specific issues. Or of the “average objectivist” talk about idealism vs realism. But this isn’t anything more than blowing off steam and huffing about it.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Hi Frank,

I have pondered this question a lot myself. In my experience, O'ist arguments against the primacy of consciousness can be divided into four classes:

From my notes on Dr. Kelley's "Evidence of the Senses" the outline of his take on the issue is as follows:

...

II. Primacy of Existence cannot be proven

A. Proof cannot begin by premising facts external to consciousness because that begs the question

B. Proof cannot begin by premising facts about consciousness as that contradicts the thesis that facts external to consciousness must be known first before awareness of awareness is possible

C. There are no other kinds of premises

D. Primacy of Existence cannot be a conclusion

E. "P of E" is self-evident not arbitrary or an act of faith

F. "P of E" is axiomatic because existence is implicit in any and all instances of awareness, any attempt to deny it affirms it

G. The third person external perspective when used to explain consciousness is implicitly a primacy of existence perspective.

...

This and more, all in the first chapter.  I wonder if you are familiar with the work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

We use the word non-existence, it is "something", but not out there.

This is fine, as long as you understand that it's an abstraction that only has validity in the way of expressing a logical relationship or the manner in which actual things change. The tree that an acorn might become doesn't exist yet, but you aren't trying to propose or imagine a "nonexistent tree". But the sort of nonexistence that God is, in the way that Aquinas and other Christian thinkers before him thought about God, really does reify 'nothing'. That realm is basically pure consciousness. 

41 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Note I don’t think there’s not a point to be made about Rand or Peikoff’s depth of treatment of any of these specific issues. Or of the “average objectivist” talk about idealism vs realism. But this isn’t anything more than blowing off steam and huffing about it.

I don't think it helps much anyway, "primacy of consciousness" is not simply a synonym for "idealism". In some ways idealism does fit primacy of consciousness, in some ways it does not. But I find the clearest way to consider primacy of consciousness is not the way idealism goes wrong, nor scientists suggesting that consciousness produces existence ex nihilio, but negative theology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

As for the stuff about scientific consensus and scientistism, I don't have anything different to add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like in the previous discussion this a claim ion primacy of consciousness. And this claim has been thoroughly refuted now and again. So if scientists arrive to such a conclusion they first must check their premises since this claim leads to irresolvable contradictions 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Apophatic theology is a denial of identity , no ?

My thoughts as well. PoC makes positive, determinate claims about the identity and operations of consciousness, sometimes to the ridiculous extreme. Apophatic theology takes the opposite route.

20 hours ago, Eiuol said:

To say that objects only come into reality as tangible/physically real things because of consciousness would be to say that there is something distinct from existence underlying everything that is.

I agree, but the claim that 'physically real things' arise out of consciousness is pretty rare, at least in modern philosophy.

IMO, the notion of 'consciousness without existence' is as meaningful as Coke cans without existence. It only attains a metaphysical meaning if you define consciousness as a 'detection' mechanism, in which case, yeah, what the frick is it supposed to detect. However:

Spoiler

...there are other theories of consciousness, such as self-representationalism.

---

15 hours ago, Grames said:

I wonder if you are familiar with the work?

Yeah, not a big fan of it. The coherence theory of truth is somewhat of a correspondence theory in disguise. For example, Hegel's 'immanent critique' analyses the disparity, or lack of correspondence between what a concept claims to be, and what it actually is. No 'stepping out of the mind' is required for that. Also, I agree with Stephen on Kelley's interpretation of Kant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Finally, it should be noticed that our approach conceives the physical reality as being determined solely by the quantum state at every instant of time. With that we reject retrocausal models according to which measuring the visibility at the output may determine the state of affairs inside the interferometer (see Methods for further discussions)."

This is in a paper by physicists which the commentator in Frank's first link parlays into "there might be mutually exclusive, yet complementary physical realities in the quantum realm." That baloney was not an interpretation given by the scientists concerning their work, only by a layperson making pedestrian hay. Frankly, she probably knows better, but stretches results in her reports so as to make her article attention-getting and accessible to an audience that cannot think very far (and mostly don't want to).

That there are both wave-like and particle-like characters of an entity, such as encountered in quantum mechanics of the world, in no way supports the existence of contradictions or coincident contraries in reality or non-existence of objective reality, whether in the quantum regime or in the classical regime the quantum regime gives rise to.

We can pronounce the question "What if everything we think true is false?" But that pronouncement fails to ask a question, which must have some specifics to attach to inquiry. It is good that Frank included specific examples for a general question "What if science concludes things contrary to basic metaphysics?" The specifics can be chased down and assessed for any alleged conflict with metaphysics, including any ways the scientific results suggest a modification or more precision in the metaphysics.

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

That approach could be dark, and last for ages.

The Dark Ages were a long time ago.  Something more recent is Lysenkoism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

This is the very definition of a "scientific consensus" in Soviet Russia.  It's not so much that correct genetics "stood" during that time, but that it was "rediscovered" when the incorrect "consensus" withered away, as it had to.

Consensus is not science and in fact has nothing to do with science. 

The scientific method, when used by independent individual thinkers is, and always has been, that which shatters ideological based consensus, especially when masquerading as "Truth" or "The Science".

 

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Yeah, not a big fan of it. The coherence theory of truth is somewhat of a correspondence theory in disguise. For example, Hegel's 'immanent critique' analyses the disparity, or lack of correspondence between what a concept claims to be, and what it actually is. No 'stepping out of the mind' is required for that.  ...

Words refer to concepts, and the concepts referred to may be well-formed or ill-formed.  Hegel's 'immanent critique'  has similarity to Rand's analysis of 'anti-concepts' which claim to be one thing but are actually another.   It is equivocation fallacy to use the term correspondence to stand for a percept's relation to what exists and a word's relation to what it refers to and to then claim these are the same kind of relationship.  Correspondence in the first sense is a real causal relation but in the second sense can be arbitrarily assigned.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grames said:

It is equivocation fallacy to use the term correspondence to stand for a percept's relation to what exists and a word's relation to what it refers to and to then claim these are the same kind of relationship.

Most theories of truth are based on some kind of correspondence, regardless of how said theories are named. They are, as it were, competing views as to which type of correspondence indicates truth. Also, Hegel is not talking about a discord between a word and a concept, but literally between a concept and its own self. Far-out, I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

but the claim that 'physically real things' arise out of consciousness is pretty rare, at least in modern philosophy.

Sure, I'm only getting at what primacy of consciousness means in the most extreme form, in the way that Rand means the idea. That's what Frank was asking about in large part, about a scientist who would say that "science proves that consciousness produces existence." 

5 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

PoC makes positive, determinate claims about the identity and operations of consciousness, sometimes to the ridiculous extreme. Apophatic theology takes the opposite route.

There is nothing about the way she defines primacy of consciousness that has to do with making determinate claims about the operations of consciousness. It might, but it doesn't have to. Apophatic theology is still the notion that consciousness produces existence, but to such a logically consistent level that it will admit that there is a realm of nothing, and that nothing produces something. You are using primacy of consciousness as a synonym for idealism, which is incorrect if you are using terminology in the same way as Rand. It's not just to be mean to Kant, it's especially a critique of God and so much more religious mysticism. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Most theories of truth are based on some kind of correspondence, regardless of how said theories are named. They are, as it were, competing views as to which type of correspondence indicates truth.

Only one can be correct, everything else is disinformation and an assault on your mind.   The only correspondence that matters is correspondence with what exists.  Anything else is correspondence with something that does not exist, and is no correspondence at all.  That is what causes the false to be false.  What is false is to be disregarded.  All of Hegel and all idealist philosophy can be disregarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2023 at 5:37 PM, Eiuol said:

But the sort of nonexistence that God is, in the way that Aquinas and other Christian thinkers before him thought about God, really does reify 'nothing'. That realm is basically pure consciousness. 

There is another interpretation that I have seen.
It is in the church of Scientology and some Buddhist philosophies.
The idea is that collective consciousness creates everything.
Anything is solid because we all agree that it is.
By all, they mean all consciousnesses... dead or alive.
A wall is solid until we agree that it is not and then you can walk through it.

The problem that was frightening for me was that it was stated somewhere in the writings that A is not A, that A is B is C is D. An attack on the law of identity is the start of evil.
I had concluded that such a statement is an attempt at control.
Meaning teaching you that you don't know what you know. 
Or what you see is not reality.
When A is not A, then we will tell you what exists or not.
Since nothing is itself, what you see is not valid.

If science determines something like that, I will become defensive based on this suspicion alone.
That was the most important contribution that Rand made to my life.
To identify those who want to control and their means.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...