Futurology VI

Dear Readers:

In the last installment of his monstrously good essay, author Lyttenburgh debunked the false promises of the Positivistic philosophy regarding the state of the Human Condition.  We discussed important issues such as consciousness, self-consciousness, and the huckster hype of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

In the comment section I plonked down my own 2 cents about AI, Turing machines, and the like.  It never ceases to amaze me how people keep invoking Alan Turing and flogging something (=AI) which Turing himself proved, around 1936 or so (invention of the Universal Turing Machine), was physically and mathematically impossible.  Let it go, people!  But no, valiant Knights continue to pursue this Holy Grail of Futility.  Oh well, in the course of that Monty Python-like quest — just as a few useful chemical recipes emerged from the futile attempts of alchemists; and just as some ancillary knowledge was acquired by the Grail-questing Knights — so too a few useful inventions have emerged, here and there, as by-products of the AI scam.

Be that as it may, let us return to Lyttenburg and resume his thread, or should we say, his Moving Tapehead, of thoughts, exactly where we left off:

 

On the painfully naïve modern iteration of Futurology:

 

When formulating the problem, the Great Design and Expectation of the AI to come, it was assumed, that, theoretically, there will be created an AI so powerful as to simulate all the “infinite variety” of the human psyche. That this hypothetical Computer will “grow up” to the human level. But this is a fiction, a lie. Instead, looking upon humans, voluntarily becoming more and more “binary-like”, some of which strive to improve the superconductivity of their head-unit CPUs by making them as empty as possibly, one might suspect, that, no – instead we ourselves might undergo a massive downgrade to the level of the computer idiot-savants.

Forking once or being a dumbass dunce?

“Man is the only animal that contemplates death, and also the only animal that shows any signs of doubt of its finality.”
– William Ernest Hocking

There is once catch, though, one cop-out. Oh, these things always exist, don’t they? It’s only natural that our hopelessly deranged optimistic Futurologist will come to this one “exploit”.  I’m talking about interconnected with the AI fantasies a religious belief about creating a prosthetic version of human “life” and “soul” in the form of “up-loading” one’s personality on a digital container. Needless to say that this particular idea, which not only permits our dear Futurologists to shed away their often ugly and very imperfect meaty containers, but also to achieve a form of immortality!  Also, needless to say, this particular idea is utterly moronic and absolutely impossible.

“Who you callin’ impossible?!”

First, we have here the same obstacles and problems while dealing with this attempt to create “artificial intelligence”. To create a valid copy of something, one must understand how it works in the first place. Why is this understood and accepted by, say, car-makers, weaponsmiths, carpenters and saddlemakers, but is beyond the supposedly mighty brains of the Futurologists? At the same time – it is precisely that the phenomenon of “consciousness” cannot be understood fully.

Oh, you can, in theory, build a perfectly accurate copy of the brain as an analytical device – and get a computer working on the same principles as the brain (by the way it’s far from granted that it will be more efficient than any of the modern – or even not so modern – computers). But where does consciousness come from? Is it self-generating, or what? What, are we on the same level as the “wise” folks of ages past, who till mid XVII c. sincerely believed that frogs and worms are spawned spontaneously in marshes under the rays of the sun?

And now – all attention on the hands, folks. An act of prestigitation as performed before you by the collective of the Futurology. They are, of course, Materialist minded people – this is important, remember this tidbit for future reference! As such, they simply can’t believe in the existence of conscience outside of the body. Body without consciousness? Sure! Consciousness without body? No way. Literally dozens of billions of consciousness possessing humans lived and died in the course of history, and yet the “ghost stories“ and “out of body experiences” belong to a particular, shameful, far away shelf in any bookstore, that, usually, is situated nowhere near the shelves devoted to the fundamental sciences.

But at the same time, being materialists, they themselves must admit that any consciousness can’t exist outside the body – including the one “forked” or written down on a hard-drive. Therefore, is we are to download (“cut+paste” if you like) a person’s mind onto an external container, while the “original” becomes deprived of it, this is just a very hi-tech form of the suicide – nothing more. The best anyone can hope to get as a result would be a “cyber-double”, that, while parasitizing on the downloaded information from the “Original” might successfully fool the Turing Test to “pass for a human”. But to anyone unbiased (i.e. for anyone who is not as blindly invested as the tunnel-vision possessing Futurologists) it’s apparent, that such an “emulator” does not have a mind (unless you are too big into “smoking” behaviorism in which case… my condolences). Such an  “emulator”, in the end, won’t be a an immortal copy of “You” – it will be just a very expensive toy, a placebo for your grieving relatives… if you have any.

“Pigs In Space” — now made up from the stuff of nightmares…

And this is very, very bad news for all those highly progressive transhumanistic Futurologists, who planned to live to the bright and shiny day of the Future to Come, when they, unashamed by the fetters of their old bodies, will finally enact their long time dream of having a three-some with their “forks” in the bodies of the up-lifted pig (transhumanists feel a certain affinity and closeness with them), a robot and your own bod-modded clone of the opposite sex than your birth one. Oh, what a bummer!

Finale
“Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.”
– Marcus Aurelius

In my series of essays united into this one particular article I dedicated some effort that you, dear readers, could see for yourself behind the notoriously tattered, yet still effective magical cloak that still successfully conceals the thread-bare essence of Futurology. If there is any essence in it at all, after all – “According to your faith let it be done to you” (c)

In the future, you will keep encountering these peddlers of A Future (Wondrous and Horrific!). Hope you’d be better prepared for such future encounters. Doesn’t matter what you will be promised in that Future Soon to Come about even farther Future Not to be Seen. Always look at the root causes and tell-tale signs and don’t trust blindly.

Talking Head Marcus Aurelius

One sure thing you most definitely should rebuke and call a peddler of the Future a liar, is if you will be promised something out of the Age of Miracles. No, I’m afraid – there will be no miracles in the Future, which, in itself, not a bad thing. Not being a professional parasite like any given Futurologist, I can’t tell you about the Future to come – but I will tell what not to expect and plan accordingly.

In the “Pessimistic” scenario when much lauded Progress would be working slower and slower (most realistic one as of now) expect to see by mid century a world more like the one we have in the here and now – nothing amazing or mind-blowing. No “smart home” for you to live in – there will be just a lousy sensors-filled apartment with various interfaces to regulate humidity and temperature. Well, that’s assuming they will be working correctly and not glitching all the way, requiring you to constantly call to (paid-by-a-second, of course!) technical services and expecting a repair brigade to fix this or that issue in a week or two.

No flying cars on eco-drives either. The car, people will be driving might be even an auto-piloted one – but still powered by the gasoline, or by electricity, produced by the burning of fossil fuel. There will be more electronic components in the car compared to the one you might be driving now, meaning that you still will be using barely a 10% of the available options… while being totally, blissfully unaware, that the controls of your car could be overridden at any time by the interested parties to arrange an “accident”. Oh, and no quality roads for you – building and then maintaining roads is an old racket, so expect to still drive on a pit-marked excuse of a road, ready to put your car out of misery any moment now.

Medicine of the Future: No hospital gowns, and nurses wear boots.

But most of all – don’t expect miracles in medicine. Permanent solutions are bad for the business. So caries, flu, headache would most certainly remain – as well as 1000 and one methods of how to prevent or slightly meliorate them, as advertised by various firms and companies. Expect nothing new but re-branding, re-boots, re-starts and re-modelings of the same old trite stuff – only in Hyper-3D, with holo-interface and/or banana taste as the needs of the market dictate it.

For the “Optimistic” variant, of the Eternal Scientific Revolution to keep delivering one wonder after another, a War must happen. A War, that, given Humanity’s already considerable destructive potential would leave no stone standing. And if we, Humans, by some freak accident will truly survive it not just as a species (in this scenario the living usually are envious of the dead) but as a civilization – nothing will ever prepare you for the torrent of Dreams and Nightmares, finally given form.

Thankfully, the chances of the “Optimistic” scenario are still rather low. And that’s okay! After all, what is the possibility of having Dreads and Wonders unimagined of becoming a part of our shell-shocked lives, compared to simply having an opportunity to live and draw breath, while so many before predicted that we, humans, were, once again giddily striding towards extinction?

Epilogue

“According to Seth, the future ended in 1962 at the Seattle World’s Fair. This was everything we should’ve inherited: the whole man-on-the-moon-within-this-decade, asbestos-is-our-miracle-friend, nuclear-powered and fossil-fueled world of the Space Age where you could go up and visit the Jetsons’ flying saucer apartment building and then ride the monorail downtown for fun pillbox hat fashions at the Bon Marche.

All this hope and science and research and glamour left here in ruins:

The Space Needle.

The Science Center with its lacy domes and hanging light globes.

The monorail streaking along covered in brushed aluminum.

This is how our lives were supposed to turn out.

Go there. Take the trip, Seth says. It will break your heart, because Jetsons with their robot maid, Rosie, and their flying-saucer cars and toaster beds that spit you out in the morning, it’s like the Jetsons have sublet the Space Needle to the Flintstones.
– Chuck Palahniuk, “The Invisible monsters”

[THE END — or is it???]

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Space, Science and Technology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Futurology VI

  1. A few years ago, I was talking to guy who bragged his daughter got a great job on a joint project between Johns Hopkins and the Department of Defense to develop the next generation of prosthetic limbs for wounded veterans. He wasn’t happy when I suggested it was all a cover to build humanoid attachments for kill-bots. Why would a government that fails to provide basic healthcare to aging veterans go to such lengths to provide state-of-the-art tech to otherwise unremarkable amputees? Maybe “helping the vets” attracts more brilliant young innovators than being a cog in the kill-bot factory…

    But I’m not as pessimistic as you guys! War drives innovation, especially at the grandest scale, but there are enough motivations and directions for research to get new discoveries outside the scope of war. There may not be enough ultra-wealthy amputees to make engineering obscenely expensive prosthetics a lucrative business move, but there are enough ultra-wealthy people dying of disease to drive research. The motivation to develop never-ending treatments instead of cures is real problem, but it can’t halt progress completely. Optimism!

    Militaries are no doubt developing nanotechnology for horrifically destructive ends, but there looks to be a flood of research aiming to help humanity, too. Will we get nanobots that eat cancer and and perform surgery and monitor health before we get nano-spybots that record our every move and kill invisibly? Hope springs eternal!

    Final optimistic thought: At worst, within a few billion years, escaping our doomed planet will supersede war as the great driver of progress!

    Thanks for the thoughtful essays.

    Like

    • Lyttenburgh says:

      You know what they say – a pessimist thinks that the situation can never get any worse, while an optimist is happily sure that it surely will! 🙂

      No, of course, the War is not the sole “locomotive” of the Progress –it is just a perfectly melded matrix of the Violence, Fear and Suspicion, which, due to that, makes it one of the best ones. At the same time, the deceptively ambivalent called “Security sphere” is the second best choice, because it provides the State (or any other Officialdom) with the instruments of suppression, surveillance and spycraft. It only makes sense for the Officialdom to develop whatever cyber-prosthetics with the “double-purpose options” for itself, and not having ordinary people outfitting themselves with them – no matter how lucrative it might sound.

      “There may not be enough ultra-wealthy amputees to make engineering obscenely expensive prosthetics a lucrative business move, but there are enough ultra-wealthy people dying of disease to drive research. The motivation to develop never-ending treatments instead of cures is real problem, but it can’t halt progress completely. Optimism!”

      Here’s how I see the big-pharma/bio-chemical industry in generally working “ethic”. The demand, the “want” drives the economy. So, say even if you have a certain category of rich people willing to pay heaploads of money to satisfy their wants, the “guys in the lab” might not be in fact so really interested to satisfy them… entirely and completely. You have a smocking-hot wife way much younger than you, lots of money and… issues? Do you really think that you would be helped? Ha-ha. No. I don’t think so.

      First you will be “milked” of enough funds to provide the lab not only for the research in the intended sphere, but also on some side projects and, maybe, for some corruption schemes which will allow guys in the lab to pocket the remaining amount of money. In due time, whatever your issue, you will be presented with the solution – requiring more of your money for the operation, several weeks of the therapy afterwards and, perhaps, of turning you into a prescribed pills junky. Dozens of millions in cash and several months of this kind of torment later and you get what you were promised by the Progress – not only the complete cure of your “issue”, but even a visible “improvement”. Hurray?

      No. Because after a month or two of “action” the effect starts to “wear off”. Literally. Painfully. Humiliatingly. Having tasted it once, you will surely pay even more for something acquired and lost so damn soon. Any price – any. You will pay any price, and you will believe that this time it will work. Maybe it even will. But you won’t know for sure – you are not a specialist. Guys in the lab – they are. But they are, by their own nature, and by the nature of the society itself are less interested in the “conquests” of the Progress, and more of your remaining money .

      That’s how its done 🙂

      P.S. Whew – way too much double entedres here even for me!

      Liked by 1 person

    • yalensis says:

      “I’m not as pessimistic as you guys!”

      As Priscilla Mullens once said to Miles Standish: “Why don’t you speak for yourself, John?”
      Ha ha!
      Lyttenburgh is the pessimist, not me!
      I still believe that we will have flying cars and be able to divert murderous asteroids.
      See, I make a distinguish between things that are physically and mathematically impossible — like digital robots who achieve self-consciousness — and things which are physically possible but just need research dollars and brains: LIke flying cars!

      Nanites which scour the human bloodstream and kill cancer cells? Possible! Why the hell not?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. davidt says:

    “But most of all- don’t expect miracles in medicine…” I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with the sentiments in this paragraph for you exaggerate altogether too much. Ultimately, the drug companies just do not have this sort of power. If they did have then they would quite quickly lose it. I could get serious, but let me tell you a little story. “Years ago”, I had a friend who made his reputation in plate tectonics and because of this the Sorbonne decided to give him an honorary D.Sc Simultaneously, the University decided to give a surgeon an honorary degree for his contribution to kidney transplants. The surgeon joked to my friend that “the French always liked their kidneys”, and my friend thought this was the funniest joke ever. It occurred to me later that it might be a pity that the Russians didn’t equally like their kidneys…

    Like

    • Lyttenburgh says:

      “The surgeon joked to my friend that “the French always liked their kidneys”, and my friend thought this was the funniest joke ever. It occurred to me later that it might be a pity that the Russians didn’t equally like their kidneys…”

      Love has nothing to do with that. Just three quotes by Gerhard Kocher

      “Do not forget: in medicine, there are more important things than life and death: dollars and cents.”

      “Pharma industry is the art of making billions from milligrams

      “The call for free markets would be more successful if it came from more sympathetic people.”

      Like

      • yalensis says:

        Yeah, I work in the healthcare field myself, from the I.T. angle. Whenever I read about somebody getting a kidney transplant or some such procedure, I always wonder, “Who is paying for that?” Those procedures don’t come cheap, and people either have to be wealthy, or lucky enough to have a terrific medical insurance policy.

        In America, people can get transplants and robotic surgery if they are on Medicare, for example. Medicare being a form of socialistic government insurance, but only for people over 65. The only other people who can afford these procedures are those who have a “golden” private or group insurance plan.

        I think what David is getting at, from other comments he has posted, is that he became disilusioned with the Soviet system because of its shortcomings in the area of health coverage. Due to these failures and shortcomings, David dismissed the entire Soviet system as a failure.
        The Soviet government, like most socialist governments, was geared to delivering basic free healthcare to all citizens, but the system was not optimized for delivering highly specialized services to people with rare conditions. That would have been too expensive.

        Although I do remind people that it was the Soviets who invented the high-tech procedure of laser eye surgery. Most people think the Americans invented it, but they didn’t. It was the Soviets who came up with this innovative technique which everybody uses now. So please give credit where credit is due.

        Like

        • davidt says:

          At the present time the difference in life expectancy for a male in Russia versus a male in Australia is about 14 years. That is an awful statistic- I am now 70 and these issues concentrate the mind somewhat more as you age. The Australian health system is often criticized very much- for example, there is a prominent article in this morning’s SMH stating that 10% of admissions are caused by doctors’ mistakes, and high doctors’ salaries are an issue. Nevertheless, by world standards our health system is very good and it, unlike the US system, essentially offers universal coverage, is cheap, if not free, and offers hi-end procedures to all. Nations ultimately have to decide where to put their money and most people in Australia want the health system to be well supported financially. It seems to me that the Soviets did not do this. One sensible decision of public health policy has been to give the doctors and allied health professionals, including medical researchers, a significant input into that policy- that is one thing that I think Russia should do. By the way, Australia has truly first class medical research centers which have produced excellent research, resulting in a high number of Nobel prize winners. Overall, I think that we do “medicine” better than Russia- there is no reason why this needs to be the case. My original comment was posted because I disagreed strongly with a paragraph that Lyttenburgh wrote. I have no objection whatsoever with “socialized” medicine but I do think it very unwise not to allow a role for “private” medicine too. One reason that the international drug companies cannot completely dominate the World is that medical researchers in the West frequently set up their own companies, to sell/develop their own ideas- in Australia this is quite common. Both of you are cynical about aspects of human behavior- that’s fine, so am I, but you have to be careful not to get carried away. Paul Halmos- I am sorry to again “quote” a mathematician- once made the observation that he didn’t consider that altruism was the most important quality in the selection of doctors- he thought that the level of interest in what they were doing was more important. I think that there is a lot of truth in this. (To Yalensis: when you use the word “socialism” I have no understanding of what you actually mean. Perhaps, you might flesh out your ideas sometime.) I will finish by making the comment that I do believe that Russia needs to encourage more small and medium sized companies- that does not mean that I therefore think that all state enterprises should be privatized, and I don’t see the US system as the future.

          Like

          • Jen says:

            Medical researchers in Russia could form partnerships or co-operatives, or create some other kind of corporate arrangement that helps to finance what they do and which frees them to work on research, and not spend too much time applying for shrinking grants and trying to justify applying for those grants when the need for them should be obvious to the bean-counters dispensing the money as it is to everyone else. Joint ventures with government agencies and banks that fund projects might be an idea too. Universities have a role to play as well in providing laboratories where scientists can work without being pressured to massage results that pharmaceutical firms want to see.

            Like

            • davidt says:

              This seems to be happening to some extent, for example, the Skolkovo center is currently listing three activities related to pharmaceuticals:
              http://www.sk.ru/news/
              On the other hand, I try to keep an eye on what is happening at Akademgorodok and not much in the medical area seems to be happening there- I suspect that Russian scientific culture, in the Soviet tradition, remains biased towards the physical/mathematical sciences. (I think that there is clear evidence that Russia has recovered very impressively in engineering and related technological/computing areas.)
              Incidentally, I did try to post a comment congratulating you on your current article in KS but each time I did I lost my WiFi connection completely- at the time, I was staying at a motel in NZ.

              Like

            • Jen says:

              Ahh, thanks! Glad you liked my KS post!

              Like

            • yalensis says:

              Which is indeed a good post, it’s about Lavrov’s speech, and I will link it right here:

              Like

  3. sinotibetan says:

    Dear Lyttenburgh,
    I enjoyed your essays on (debunking) Futurology. Very well written indeed! I’ll need to read them again slowly to fully appreciate the essence of the essays(I read them in one hour – a bit too swift).
    Regarding AI, I agree that it is overhyped. In the first place, neuroscientists are still at baby-steps trying to understand the workings of the human brain. How neurons(and other cells like astrocytes, microglia etc) interact to ‘form’ self-awareness and consciousness remain a mystery. Neurons are sophisticated biological systems with inherent plasticity. I doubt current computer systems(digital, analogue etc) come close in simulating neuroplasticity. In fact, the whole field of neuroscience , for quite a while, viewed the workings of the brain like that of a modern day computer system leading to erroneous notions about neuronal systems. If we are barely comprehending the physiology and cellular/molecular processes of our own (human) intelligence, it would be haughty to claim a breakthrough in AI will occur in the near future. I think AI is a misnomer. It should be called PseudoIntelligence.

    The eukaryotic cell in general and the human cell in particular is far more complex than originally thought by 20th century scientists. Even after sequencing the human genome, it is found that only 1-2 percent of the human genome are protein-coding genes. The other 98% scientists are quite clueless and for a long while were considered “junk” DNA -molecular relics of evolution. However, ENCODE has shown that most of the genome … including the ‘junk ‘ portions are transcribed. Now we have a plethora of newly discovered ‘non-coding’ RNAs like circRNA, lincRNA, snoRNA, microRNA, piwiRNA etc which are thought to be involved in complex regulatory networks of the genome. And there is the epigenome(DNA methylations and histone modifications) , overlapping genes, tandem repeats(which are now thought to be functional in certain situations) , post-translational modifications etc adding to the layers of complexity in the mechanics of the human cell. All talk about a soon to be achieved ‘singularity’ by scientists / futurists is premature in my opinion. We don’t really know how a ‘generic’ human cell work – what more a specialized cell like the neuron- what more an immensely complex organ like the brain!

    Once again, thanks Lyttenburgh for your brilliant essays. I hope my comments make some sense. To yalensis: I have on and off visit this blog but I don’t comment because I don’t think I write very well and you guys are way above me intellectually, I don’t know if I have much to offer. But the futurology essays and discussions on AI / consciousness were too tempting to resist a comment…

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Dear Sinotibetan:
      Welcome, and thanks for visting my blog!
      I agree that Lyttenburgh’s essay was brilliant, and I hope he will respond to your comment.

      You should comment more, your writing is fine.
      Above you intellectually ??? Are you kidding???
      I have always regarded you as a bona fide intellectual.
      I mean, you’re a scientist, right?

      Like

      • sinotibetan says:

        Dear yalensis,
        Thanks for your kind words. Will visit and comment on your blog – time permitting. 😊

        Like

    • Lyttenburgh says:

      Well met, sinotibetan! You might not remember me, but I surely remember you from the early times of Kremlin Stooge blog kickstarting – at that time I had a different nickname, but the same snarky demeanor 😉 I’ve always admired you style and content – such amazingly calm, informative and well written comments! You, sinotibetan, was an embodiment of sanity and rationality among us way back in the heady days of early KS commentariat.

      Thank you for reading my essay. I’m glad that you liked it despite the fact that I still remain to this day a “bloody humanitary” and not a “precision sciences” type. What I did was, from my point of view, just state the obvious. Nothing more. If a person as ignorant in the arcane mysteries of the “precision sciences” as me can with enough research and preparation get to that, then surely others can, which might, probably, leech away a few wide-eyed converts from the “futurology” cults. One can hope.

      Of course, we are not even close to the construction of the true AI. Bu this hurdle won’t preclude the marketing departments of various IT firms from proclaiming just that and for the ignorant masses of consumers to believe them – the history is my witness. In fact, this marketed AI of the future, in my mind, would resemble a child of the unholy union between Siri, Google and Windows 98 (the buggier the better!). A long running joke among videogames players is that AI stands for “Artificial Idiot”. For marketing issues it will be rebranded into “Satisfactory Intelligence”. Because we can’t say “buggy/retarded” – we have to say “special”! In fact, as per Bill Gates’ “Electronic Highway” which I reference in my essay it will not be a truly “independent thinking” entity – more likely, it would become an “Avatar” of its creators biases and conceptions of what is “right” and serving the client with “appropriate” answers and decisions.

      Like

      • sinotibetan says:

        Dear Lyttenburgh,
        Thanks so much for your kind words! Wow….yes, those early days of Kremlin Stooge blog, I think I will remember who you are if I knew your nickname back then. ☺I still visit KS on and off but I hardly comment there nowadays. The blog has gone far ahead for me to contribute any worthy comments. I will always remain a Russophile and wish Russia all the best. However, I can’t read or speak Russian… and that is a handicap in truly understanding the situation in that great nation. I thought it wise to read and learn rather than comment with lack of knowledge.

        I am more of a “science” person(wouldn’t dare to claim the ‘precision’ part) and I have to admit all these science/techno hype and futuristic prophesying is very seductive. At least for my type of personality. I think the seductive power of “futurology” borders on the quasi-religious….with all the popularizers of the cult on the internet and book stores. The ‘science’ types have a danger of not ‘seeing’ reality – I think your essay will jolt them from their fantasy world. Your essay certainly did that for me. I will be re-reading your essay to try to capture more concepts that I might have failed to grasp at my first reading.

        There are many essays in KS and this blog that are really good. I remembered commenting in KS blog a long time back that I hope these essays get more readership…and this is certainly my hope with your essay too! Take care! ☺

        Like

  4. sinotibetan says:

    Thought of somehl links that may be of interest…

    http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/03/27/why-the-brain-is-not-like-a-co/

    https://www.hindawi.com/journals/np/2013/185463/

    Even the synapse has new layers of networks – with astrocytes!

    Like

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