Beyond Reason


Watching My Favorite Argument Disappear

Posted in Philosophy by Abigail on February 9, 2007

Why couldn’t something physical “think?”

The assumption that every single one of these authors seems to make (and that I myself make) is that thinking is something immaterial. Therefore, if you deny the immaterial you’ve denied thinking. But, is thinking something immaterial? This seems like an untested idea and it is the core of the argument against naturalism.

Why couldn’t someone say that the gray matter that composes my brain is a special kind of matter that allows reasoning and thinking (again – who says reasoning and thinking are immaterial processes?). Who says consciousness is – by definition – immaterial? We seem to be arguing circularly. I recognize that to say that gray matter is solely physical puts a human brain on the level of a table or a stapler; and, I tend to direct my questions towards other humans, containing this special gray matter, as opposed to a table or stapler. But, different physical objects do have different properties. Why couldn’t it be said that gray matter has an extremely special quality – that is physical – that is reasoning itself?

As much as I love the argument against naturalism, it seems to make a huge, glaring assumption. I’m personally comfortable with the assumption but only if it is recognized as such: an assumption. And it absolutely means the argument is not air tight – in fact it appears to have a whole directly in the very center of the argument.

Anywho, I am not a philosopher, but it’s intriguing.

Thoughts? Do I seem wrong?

For the record – as everyone who knows me knows – I do believe in the immaterial.

Advertisements

17 Responses to 'Watching My Favorite Argument Disappear'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Watching My Favorite Argument Disappear'.

  1. Chris Poteet said,

    Interesting. Off the cuff I would agree that “thinking” has no natural, physical ontological status.

  2. amandalaine said,

    Thanks Chris. I thought of something else that truly affects the situation.

    While the argument could be made that something physical “thinks,” we would be forced to say that that something has no free will. As best as I can tell, the naturalists view of the human “mind” is something totally out of his control because atoms, and whatever physical units you come up with, follow physical laws. Therefore, whatever that brain thinks up is solely controlled by those physical laws. No choice is involved; free will dissipates.

    But, still, you could say the brain is doing its thing; ie, it is still thinking. The question then becomes “how do we define thinking?” Does it or does it not require free will? Of course the free will conundrum is absolutely unsolvable…

    I have no idea. I have wandered way past my pay grade here. But, it’s interesting! Brad, I am sure you have a response to this one. 🙂

    Here’s a quote on the matter:
    —-
    If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.
    – J.B.S. Haldane

  3. Steve H said,

    Hi Amandalaine,

    You brought up an interesting point. It reminded me of an article (below) I read last year related to this subject – though I may have to explain slightly how. The article anyway notes how in MRI scans of the body they have to compensate for particles that appear to be popping in out of nowhere, or at least out of no place that we can see. This particular phenomenon is described by quantum mechanics.

    With this finding in mind, I have found consistently that the best argument against naturalism is found in what scientists have been finding in their continuing study of particle physics. While I often find the general public’s philosophical framework for understanding the world is based on Newtonian physics (often called physical “laws”), scientists for the last 100 years have been finding over and over again how Newton’s descriptions of the universe aren’t quite right. Hence, by the way, they aren’t laws at all, just some (incredibly smart) men’s description of patterns they’ve observed in examining the physical world with their senses.

    However, later scientists’ additional observations with their senses and with tools to help magnify their senses have shown, quite honestly, that naturalism (the idea that only what we can see is real, and that the world we can see is self-contained) is wrong. Quantum mechanics consistently shows the physical world is not a wind-up clock, and that pesky partices are constantly popping into the apparent universe from ‘nowhere’. In fact, this is constantly happening to the particles which make up our body (and that grey matter in our brain).

    By this scientific observation I would have to say one can’t assume what is seen is all that there is, nor that what is seen is a self-contained system. Instead, they find these particles seem to come and go. The can’t even really pinpoint them. They can only describe particles in the seen world with a probabity function describing how likely it is that a given particle will be at point X or at point Y in the next nanosecond. Point Y can be anywhere in the seen universe. Whether these particles are brought into being (or into ‘seen’) at point X or Y by actions in unseen dimension(s) has been one of the hottest topics in theoretical physics for nearly 20 years. String theory (now often called M-theory) has been the front-runner in scientist’s attempt to describe this phenomena. Most (if not all) major scientific research universities are working on this topic.

    String theory consistenly speeks of an apparent universe or ‘seen’ dimensions, and of unseen dimensions which affect it. Personally I believe this is how grey matter in the brain is affected to think one way or another from outside of the seen world. A personal favorite verse from the Bible on this topic:

    I say naturalism smaturalism. Do what the smartest scientests in the world are doing. Look outside the seen. Personally I suspect the unseen dimenion(s) they are finding hints of may be the spiritual realm.

    “By faith we understand that which is seen was not made from that which is visible”. – Hebrews 11:3

    ————————————
    Particle physics
    Strange behaviour

    Sep 1st 2005
    From The Economist print edition
    Particles that exist only fleetingly help make everyday matter magnetic

    IN THE world of particle physics, there is no such thing as nothing. Particles of matter, and their anti-matter counterparts, are forever flitting in and out of existence. Theorists have predicted that the presence of such transient visitors has little effect on everyday life. However, a group of experimental physicists has just shown this view to be mistaken.

    Atomic nuclei are bundles of protons and neutrons which, along with electrons, are the basis of matter. But protons and neutrons themselves are made of more fundamental particles called quarks. These quarks have fractional electrical charges and combine to give each particle its overall electric charge, whether positive in the case of protons or neutral in the case of neutrons. They also give each particle its magnetic properties.

    As well as possessing electric charge, quarks come in one of six “flavours”: up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top. A proton, for example, consists of two up quarks and a down quark, while a neutron consists of two down quarks and an up quark. But besides these permanent quarks, quantum theory predicts that so-called virtual quarks, together with their anti-matter partners, are continuously emerging from the vacuum of space and then disappearing again as a result of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. So, while a proton has three resident quarks, it also plays host to a lot of short-term visitors. These are mostly up and anti-up, or down and anti-down, but also, occasionally, strange and anti-strange quarks. These guests add their properties to the mix.

    A team of physicists at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Virginia, led by Douglas Beck, decided to investigate just how much of a contribution the visitors make. They did so by probing the interior of protons (in the form of the nuclei of hydrogen atoms) with fast-moving electrons. By analysing the subsequent trajectories of the particles, they could pinpoint the effect of the visitors. The results, reported in this week’s Physical Review Letters, showed that this was far greater than had been predicted. In particular, some 5% of a proton’s magnetism is contributed not by the host quarks but by visiting strange quarks that have popped out of nowhere.

    The magnetism of protons is exploited in the medical technique known as magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI). Patients are placed in a strong magnetic field that aligns the magnetic fields of the protons in their bodies. The protons are then stimulated by radio waves which “unalign” them, and the energy they release as they return to their original alignments gives away their position. Since different tissues have different compositions (and thus different densities of protons), this signal can be turned into a picture of what is going on inside a body. So, next time you have an MRI scan, remember that part of the picture depends on something that isn’t really there. Strange, eh?

  4. amandalaine said,

    Very interesting Steve! That was enjoyable.

    You take a scientific way out of the problem. I am still curious to know what the philosophical answer would be. Since science forever progresses, theoretically, it can always find something tomorrow that disproves what it found today. Therefore, it’s shaky ground on which to stand.

    Of course, philosophy is completely theoretical – therefore nothing can be “proved” but then again nothing can be “disproved”.

    Good call for using Hebrews 11:3.

    Have you ever read any Kierkegaard?

  5. Steve H said,

    Hi Amandalaine,

    Ah, no I haven’t read any Kierkegaard but have him on my ‘to read’ list. Would you suggest any book in particular? I see what you mean on the scientific-only argument. I also thought of a quick counterpoint.. Is it not the scienctific ‘findings’ of Newton et al that brought up the idea of naturalism in the first place? If later scientic findings take away their theories (and that is all they are) about how the world works (for example, the idea that is a self-contained set of material and thus essentially a wind up clock). It’s not as though they actually found this was the case. This was just all they could see. If scientists are now seeing something which counters that idea, I think it’s pretty a pretty strong case against a concept (naturalism) which was strongly supported at the time in its sale to the populace as being “what the scientists have found – come now be reason-able and believe with us that there is no unseen realm”.

    On a philosophical level I would argue it is a fundamentally weak argument to assume as fact that any observer could claim the self-authority to declare that if THEY can’t observe it, it doesn’t exist. Of it THEY haven’t thought of it, it must not be true. Surely that is a “man assuming his own senses and intellect are god” philosophy. I would argue that since recent scientific findings over the last 100 years have removed from naturalism its “science has found” case, I would hope anyone who accepts the idea that man is not god could see they are on very solid ground to reject naturalism solely on philosophical grounds. I’d say “how do you KNOW there isn’t an unseen realm greater than you, potentially with beings who know more than you do about how everything works”? They may say that is too much imagination, but they can no longer say that is unscientific.

  6. Brad said,

    Ok it has been awhile since I’ve posted…oops I just forgot to check. Let me be honest with you and say that I didn’t read everyones prior posts so I may touch on things already mentioned. I’m just trying to catch up as fast as I can. I guess I should say that I’m not really sure exactly what you are asking for.
    I don’t think that you have to argue circularly to come to a very simple conclusion about thinking. The objects of our thoughts are not identical to the things themselves, yet we experience things potentially in our minds all of the time. I can picture and imagine and remember people, places and things without having actual tiny physical objects inside my head. That is the distinction between actual and potential. Do we then say that these thought objects in my mind do not exist? That I think is the conclusion of naturalism taken to its extreme. It also seems much more ridiculous to think that thought objects don’t exist then to say that they exist potentially and immaterially in my mind. The important part of the conversation stems around whether we can determine if the physical orientation of the cells chemicals and electrons in my brain are the sole cause of these immaterial thought objects. It is tempting to consult Ockham’s razor here. Shouldn’t we say that if you can see brain chemistry and electrical impulses coinciding with thought objects then why bring in another cause in the metaphysical realm (spirit, mind, intellect or whatever you want to call it). But even as I write this I can “sense” my own personal subject- the real me-hovering over everything that I type and every thought causing those words to form in my mind. It is this subjective experience of everything that confounds the naturalist or reductionist.
    Does anyone really think that if you put all of the correct brain chemicals and the correct amount of electrical impulses in a dead brain that you could prove that there was then a subject experiencing something? You can’t prove that at all. That is begging the question. Is it an assumption for a non-naturalist of any sort to say that subjective experience exists? I think it is a statement of fact beyond the realm of proof. Just like the statement I exist. You can question your knowledge of such facts (how do I know that I exist?) but you can’t question the unadulterated, bare naked “being” of it. Rather…you can question it because people do all the time…but you can’t meaningfully question it.

  7. Brad said,

    I know that this is a quick repost, but I was just reading over my last post and came to the horrifying conclusion that my punctuation is terrible. I write as if I was talking and using verbal emphasis. I write run-on sentences and have probably really confused people with some of the things I wrote. There are a few new sentences below and changes to make it more understandable.

    Ok it has been awhile since I’ve posted…oops I just forgot to check. Let me be honest with you and say that I didn’t read everyones prior posts so I may touch on things already mentioned. I’m just trying to catch up as fast as I can. I guess I should say that I’m not really sure exactly what you are asking for. I’m not saying you don’t come up with interesting or important topics…just that sometimes its hard to frame an answer if I don’t fully understand the heart of your question. Anyway here goes…
    I don’t think that you have to argue circularly to come to a very simple conclusion about thinking. The objects of our thoughts are not identical to the things (that our thought objects refer to) themselves. We experience things potentially in our minds all of the time. I can picture and imagine and remember people, places and things without having actual tiny physical objects inside my head representing them. I think that I have used the phrase “exist potentially in my mind” before in other topics. This is what I meant by that.
    Do we then say that these thought objects in my mind do not exist? They don’t exist in the precise way or to the same degree things themselves exist. But they exist in the same SENSE that I say that any other thing exists. The conclusion of naturalism taken to its extreme denies this. If thought objects are merely the cellular, electrical and chemical arrangements of things in my skull…then I should experience the swirling about of chemicals, electrons and cells. Not a face a song or an emotion. It seems much more ridiculous to say that thought objects don’t exist than to say that they exist potentially or immaterially in my mind. The important part of the conversation then moves to whether we can determine if the physical orientation of the cells, chemicals, and electrons in my brain are the sole CAUSE of these immaterial thought objects. It is tempting to consult Ockham’s razor here. Ockham’ Razor has been so misquoted before that I should paraphrase it here: do not multiply causes unnecessarily. People have quoted it as “the simplest explanation is the right one”- does that just sound stupid to anyone besides me? “Because it’s made of tomatoes” is a much simpler answer to “Why is blood red?” than the real one- but I digress. The naturalist says Ockham’s razor compels us to say that if you can see and measure brain chemistry and electrical impulses coinciding with thought objects then why bring in another cause in the metaphysical realm (spirit, mind, intellect or whatever you want to call it). But even as I write this I have immediate experience of my own personal subject-the real me-hovering. It hovers over everything that I type and over every thought causing those words to form in my mind. It is this subjective component to the experience of everything (in rational minds) that confounds the naturalist or reductionist.
    Does anyone really think that if you put all of the correct brain chemicals and the correct amount of electrical impulses in a dead brain that you could prove that there was then a subject experiencing something? You can’t prove that at all. This is part of the problem related to knowing whether animals are rational or not. How can we know if there is no understandable communication. I’m not commenting one way or another on the rational status of animals…I’m just asking how can we know unless we experience them as other subjects through communication. We experience other human subjects all the time through communication (you’re doing it right now). But you’re not experiencing me actually in your presence. You’re experiencing me potentially through a blog post comment. To be truthful you can’t ever actually experience anyone else’s subject. This raises the question “Is it an assumption for a non-naturalist of any sort (Theistic or non Theistic) to say that subjective experience exists?” I think it is a statement of fact beyond the realm of proof. Just like the statement “I exist”. You can question your knowledge of such facts (how do I know that I exist?) but you can’t question the unadulterated, bare naked “being” of it. I shouldn’t say that you can’t question existential facts because people do all the time…but you can’t meaningfully question them. (Thank You Sartre)
    There are a few obvious questions from that last paragraph that I won’t bother to bring up unless someone else does first.

    Gee whiz I could take all day just editing myself…It’s not perfect but better I think.

  8. Jai said,

    The difference between Newtonian physics and quantum physics is a conundrum that cosmologists have been trying to solve for a long time and falls under the heading “Grand unified theory” or GUT as I’ll abbreviate it here. The particles popping in and out of existence is a result of Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle that says you give up knowledge of a particles speed/position when you know the particles position/speed more accurately, which means, simply if I know *exactly* where a particle is (say a black hole), then I don’t know how fast it’s going (which could even exceed the speed of light), hence not only is space made up of particles popping into existence, but it also means that black holes radiate energy/particles (called Hawking radiation). The search for the GUT however assumes quite crucially that the universe behaves the same *everywhere* but it does not assume that all “laws” (i.e. Newtonian physics) describe everything at every scale. Newton was great for describing galaxies and planets (and apples on head), but he wasn’t so great at describing electrons, quarks, and gluons (and half-dead cats in boxes). The naturalists all recongize this (or should). Steven Hawking (whom I consider to be a rather rational agnostic/athiest) in his discussion on free will says that if a GUT exists, a) we only have an illusion of free will (because it is too complex to calculate), and b) the GUT will have been responsible for us discovering the GUT itself because we all “obey” it (our brains think in accordance with the laws of physics). I believe both of these views are quite logical. The interesting point here is again (as I think I’ve commented before), the only real argument between the naturalist (cosmologist) and the Christian worldview is the question of the creative force of the universe (GUT or God) is impersonal (GUT) or personal (God). The thing I find most interesting about the “militant” (or shall we say “evangelical”) naturalist athiests (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc.) is that if they *truly* believe what they are selling, then logic itself is the result of the GUT. Which means that regardless of thinking being physical or not, we are all just behaving how we’ve been “designed” by the GUT. So my question is WHY ARE THEY PREACHING when if what they believe is true, we (Christians) have no choice but to believe in God? If this is true, why are they so adamant about arguing what they believe, as if they could “change” something that is scientific – the GUT, and trying to get us to change our minds when we actually have no free will (interesting, it almost sounds like some brands of calvanism). Also, it shouldn’t matter if they are right because as we’ve already stated, the discovery of the GUT is already prescribed by the GUT itself and the starting conditions of the universe so to a fine point, there really are no laws of logic, only particle interactions as predetermined in our grey matter by the GUT. If that’s the case, why then do they appeal to the laws of logic trying to get us change our belief which has obviously been predetermined? If however there *is* no grand unification (leave aside if we discover it, just say it doesn’t exist), then something like Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle comes into play, and you now have the laws of the universe shifting rather than simply particles trapped in black holes. Meaning that if the laws of physics don’t apply all over the universe, that means that in another part of the universe, the laws of physics might allow a god-like entity to exist, maybe one that could “mold” only his section of the universe. This results in the conundrum that results in their argument being used against the naturalist. So, either they believe that they don’t really need to be so militant (the laws of don’t really exist), or they have to allow for the possiblity of a God. For a naturalist to truly believe in a universe without a God (personal creative force of the universe), then a GUT (impersonal creative force) must replace Him. That’s not very surprising as Paul said of them in Phillippians “Their god is their stomach…”

  9. Jai said,

    I hope that made sense… Steve H or Brad, can you help me with the laws of logic existing or not?

    If thought is just particle interactions in grey matter according to some unified “law” (GUT) then the Naturalist trying to appeal to the laws of logic in order to change the Christian’s particle interactions is in itself illogical because we are behaving as the Naturalist is saying we have to according to the GUT and therefore the laws of logic don’t exist, or the argument trying to convince is self-defeating?

  10. Jai said,

    Amanda, I don’t know by now if this is along the lines of what this post was getting at or if I just created a new ponderable for you… I hope its useful tho! 🙂 sorry i haven’t commented, I have been busy 🙂

  11. amandalaine said,

    Jai, you kill me. That was great.

    I read all of it. It was good and quite informative. I’ll have to read it again to better understand it (because the ideas are somewhat complex not because you didn’t make sense).

    Here was my all-time favorite line. In reference GUT, “Their god is their stomach…” Truly, truly excellent.

    Ok, sorry nothing substantive to offer. I am sleepy and tired. The laws of logic do not currently apply to me – toooo much homework and late at nightness. Do you want to hear about NCR’s data system? I’m writing a case study on them. Kind of cool.

    A real response will be offered later. Good night. Oh, I may take devil’s advocate position because that may be more fun… My usual assumption is that nothing is as simple or open-and-shut as we like to think. Don’t you think the majority of big questions are unanswerable? That’s why I’m liking Kierkegaard right now… although I need to read him instead of about him. Ok, good night for real.

  12. amandalaine said,

    I understand that you’re busy. Post at your leisure.

    Take care.

    Besides, your work sounds way cool. Take advantage of it while you can!

  13. Brad said,

    Jai,when it comesto the laws of logic I must claim ignorance. It is not my realm of expertise. What I would offer though is a quick and dirty shot. The laws of logic exist as descriptions of two things: the way the mind thinks and how the mind grasps possibility. The laws of logic as descriptions cannot be said to be on a first order of existence. We don’t know all of the laws of logic because we could create new ones any time. I don’t mean that we could arbitrarily define a new one obviously. Logic laws don’t exist without minds first.

  14. amandalaine said,

    Steve H – in case you stop by here…

    You asked if I have read any Kierkegaard and unfortunately I haven’t. I have only read about him. But, a book you would GREATLY enjoy is The Seekers by Daniel Boorstin. I am halfway through it and it is great! I will post a review of it when I finish. It’s a review of philosophy/religion/science from the beginning of time until now (in the Western world). Science gets thrown in there because it also “seeks.” So, quite good!

    I do have a response to your thoughts, Steve, I just haven’t posted them yet. Take care! And post more!

  15. amandalaine said,

    Steve G H,

    “I have found consistently that the best argument against naturalism is found in what scientists have been finding in their continuing study of particle physics.” What if there was no scientific evidence in support of your position? All that’s left is a philosophical answer. Which, I believe, is totally legitimate considering the naturalists position is a philosophical one (I would say). Various presuppositions are the core of their system; they have gone beyond “strict” science to make claims that science can not demonstrate. (Of course, I do the same but I don’t call it science.)

    “Do what the smartest scientists in the world are doing. Look outside the seen.” By definition, isn’t this impossible for science? How can science “look outside the seen”? You can philosophize – that’s looking outside the seen. But that’s not science. If scientists are in some way “doing scientific things” in this area that you are describing, then they are NOT “looking outside the seen” because, by definition, you can not do that. Anyway, just being technical. But there’s ramifications to this.

    “…recent scientific findings over the last 100 years have removed from naturalism its “science has found” case” From what I see in pop/mass culture, this is not actually what most people believe. I would say most treat science as practically god-like, in a non-god kind of way because we are “so past” god ideas. We’re too progressive for that. Perhaps, those who research these things feel as you do, but, pop culture still seems to worship at the alter of science.

    “naturalism (the idea that only what we can see is real…” What we can see. Atoms aren’t seen. Right? I am not a scientist so watch me say stupid things here. But, what do we mean when we say “seen?” Do we just mean “contains physical properties” or “is tangible?” Of course, atoms aren’t tangible. It seems to me that science has been in the business, for a long time, of dealing with the “unseen.” Of course, it all depends on your definition “seen” and that is the question I am raising here.

  16. amandalaine said,

    Brad,

    Greatly appreciated your post. Actually – your first post that you thought was so terribly written – I read just fine!

    Your explanation of actual things versus things in my mind was quite helpful! Thanks! (And it is simple.)

    “I can “sense” my own personal subject- the real me-hovering over everything that I type and every thought causing those words to form in my mind.” Aren’t you begging your point here? Wouldn’t the naturalist say that what you are sensing is an illusion? The physical elements of your brain makes you think that you are “hovering over” but it’s just an illusion. (Of course, the problem with that is, why would the brain make me think something untrue? And then, what else us untrue that it makes me think? And, how can I ever know this if it is in charge and not me? But, then, there is no “me” so what am I talking about? I’m not even sure I know what I just said there but it made sense briefly. As far as I can tell, naturalism annihilates the human which, as far as I can tell, also means no reasoning is possible. This is like the annihilation of civilization – just to draw it to its dramatic and extreme end.) So, do you think you’re begging the point? Any thoughts on my subsequent thoughts?

    By the way, what started all this was a January edition of Time magazine which had a few scientists stating that there is no “me” and that we should get used to it. They were talking about the annihilation of self – and by implication a thousand other things – with confidence, lack of inspection, and over simplicity. The implications were huge and were left un-explored! Anyway…

    “a statement of fact beyond the realm of proof” Very very interesting. This is an important concept. You believe some things are “beyond the realm of proof?” I am slowly realizing that a great many things must be. We live in a world of axiom and it is faith, in a few things, that allows me to reason.

    “Just like the statement I exist. You can question your knowledge of such facts (how do I know that I exist?) but you can’t question the unadulterated, bare naked “being” of it. Rather…you can question it because people do all the time…but you can’t meaningfully question it.” Hmmmm, not much to say here but I really appreciated these sentences.

    Here’s a great quote from Lewis on the matter: “An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy.” I think that applies to my previous paragraph…

  17. amandalaine said,

    Jai,

    Well, points for Steven Hawking! That’s cool to see someone so consistent with the implications of their beliefs/theories. If we are wholly material, we have no free will. I would say this is antithetical to most human beings since we certainly have the illusion of free will and we LOVE our own power (to put it lightly). And yet he states we do not have it.

    “why then do they appeal to the laws of logic trying to get us change our belief which has obviously been predetermined?” Excellent excellent points here Jai. I’m with you. Loss of free will is a problem. If there’s no free will, we have destroyed all reasoning and therefore, maybe free will does exist! It’s a self-referential paradox. Or you could just say it’s self-refuting. Yes, I agree with you – logic is lost. All is lost to take it to its ultimate conclusion.

    “in another part of the universe, the laws of physics might allow a god-like entity to exist, maybe one that could “mold” only his section of the universe.” The usual conception of God says that God has no spacio-temporal properties. How do you reconcile this with the previously quoted statement?

    Again, as great as your post was Jai, the best line was the last line. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: