Abstract: Thinking is what defines us. Agreed.

Yet, from most perspectives, Descartes’ famous “Cogito Ergo Sum“, “I Think Therefore I Am” is (grotesquely) counterfactual, as I show below, from the nature of logic, from science, and from introspection. No, the soul does not come before and independently of the body, Messieurs Descartes and Havel. The reality is the exact opposite.  

Thinking emerges from the rough and tough, it is something that rises only from very complex, very organized matter. It may be the face of god, but it is first an act of human will. Last, and not least, the self extends well beyond conscious thought.



It often happens, in the course of human debates, that, by manipulating standard concepts from fresh, and sometimes opposite perspectives, one is perceived to say the exact opposite of what one is trying to say. Why? Because much of what passes for thinking is actually perfunctory checking for the presence of a few known facts, in an ancient mood.

(This is not really a failure of the logical system; it turns out perception itself works in the same perfunctory way: 90% of input in the visual system consists of reentrant fibers…)

One consequence of my essay I Mood Therefore I Thinkis the exact opposite conclusion of Descartes’ most famous statement, from a multi pronged attack.

Yet, Paul Handover, the excellent gentleman and versatile thinker who founded the excellent site Learning From Dogs“, in what I fear could be a standard critique, suggested that I complicated matters about thinking, by trying to deviate from Descartes’s “I think therefore I am“. Said he:

“Cogito ergo sum, or as the French would say, “Je pense donc je suis”…surely all you are saying is that famous phrase, “I think, therefore I am”?

Ergo, writing so extensively about moods is complicating something basic to man. Some humans think and some don’t!”

Well, surely not. (Paul later understood what I meant, as the comment section made clear.) I agree that moods, paying attention to moods, considerably complicates the analysis of thinking, as I tried to show, for example, with Socrates’ obsession with pathetic little logic. That itty-bitty logic was just a transparent way to change the conversation from what was really wrong with Athens, namely that it was a slave society… Instead Socrates lived as a hanger-on of the golden youth of Athens, those whose descendants would ultimately collaborate with Macedonian plutocracy (Antipater, and his goons, 322 BCE). About that most grievious logical flaw, he had nothing to say; it was a question of moods.

Living, worldwide, among various natives, all endowed with very varied moods, about the same things, from Silicon Valley to Iran, Black Africa to the Latin Quarter, has taught me that moods dominate logic. Maybe not locally, in a mind, but certainly, globally, throughout a mind.

Recently I was talking to a Silicon (Valley) mini titan, and he asked me how my writing was doing, feigning polite interest, while barely hiding his considerable irritation, hostility and contempt (to all I represented, the Cogito). The mood he projected was clearly not the mood I would have enjoyed at the Café de Flore in Paris. Nor, of course, with such a mood in place, the debate could reach any depth. Silicon Valley does not want depth, just profits and market share, enabled by financial plots, and as little government as possible (while entertaining and financing the president). That’s the mood.

The first thinker to dare criticize Descartes directly was the (ultra-rich) Ludwig Wittgenstein, who went to Cambridge to study with Russell, and taught there, between bouts of building a cabin with his hands in Norway, and renouncing his plutocratic prerogatives. (Although it can be said Sartre & Al. made a covert critique of Descartes, see below.)

Wittgenstein thought Descartes’ famous slogan was pointless. Ludwig used to make fun of Descartes in his Cambridge seminar by loudly remarking:”I think, therefore it rains!” Or: “I think, therefore the sky is blue!” He did not elaborate more than that, I will.

All humans think. Simply some refuse to do it creatively, or have been conditioned, by a special mood, to avoid all and any creative thinking.

On the face of it, Descartes’ “Cogito” statement is ridiculous, as it uses an emerging property to define existence itself. But emergence pre-supposes existence. (And see what Existentialism hinted about the subject below.) And yet we will see the story is a bit more subtle.



When one looks at an implication: a > b, one is looking at a piece of neurology. Most mathematicians not only do not understand that, but refuse to understand it, are highly offended by it, and would rather leave the room screaming (they already have). However, so it is.

The wolf can howl to the moon, call it divine, still it is the moon. A physical object. Just like the mathematician can howl to mathematics, call it divine, still, like the moon, it’s just out there. That makes it even more important, but nothing physics did not invent first. 

Mathematicians want to call mathematics divine, for the same reason dogs want to call the moon divine: because, having discovered their object of adoration to be out of this world makes them feel divine about themselves (something very obvious in mathematicians). Descartes, creating the world just from his own thinking, is a typical case.

Reality is much more prosaic, not to say vulgar.

It is well known that a dog trying to get at a ball thrown in the water, will run along the beach just so, and jump in the water according to the optimal trajectory confirmed by electronic computers and 7,000 years of intense human efforts to write down the rules of calculus, so that they could be installed inside said computers.

How do mathematicians think wolves know calculus? (And so do lions, I have seen it.) Because they got the Fields Medal, the Abel Prize? How come the dog takes a year to learn what takes the mathematician 15? Because they read it in books, like human mathematicians?

No, it’s much simpler than that. Wolves have neurobiology which embodies (the) calculus (they need). This is the reason for what Wigner called “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics“. The mind is built from the existence of histories experienced. Yes, even in wolves. They make this spiritual construction when they play as puppies.

The puppies play with a lot of possibilities, their minds memorize those that work the best. It’s not building the cathedrals, but it leads there.

(The basic principles of cathedral construction were also found by trial and error, then culturally transmitted… so was calculus, now culturally hammered in, so that young human mathematicians, differently from those poor dogs, do not have to invent it!)



Logic is made of (neurological) rules, data consist in (neurological) input (most internally generated). Those exist first. Thinking comes later, it is what is called an Emerging Property.

What is an emerging property? An enormous system is put in place, with an enormous number of interactions, and, as it becomes dynamic, it builds an order, an order that emerges progressively. Even plate tectonic is an emerging property. Crystallization is an example. pain, physical or psychological, another. All societies, even those of ants, are emerging properties.

Clearly, whatever thinking is, it’s an emerging property, because thinking requires a bunch of neurons to come together, first.

Moods and sensations are the indispensable background to any logical system.

It’s not just my opinion, and it’s not just neurological. Open any treatise in logic. OK, it’s easy to get lost within logic, as a quick peek at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy shows . Logic is a universe of its own. Most mathematicians know nothing about it, and don’t want to know (lest they feel beaten at their own game, logical arrogance). To simplify, as usual, I go hard core, by sticking to hard core pragmatism (as found in the best hard science and mathematics).

Judicious simplification leads to better abstraction. I am going to simplify what logic is.

I have studied various logical systems, long and hard, even including Girard’s Linear Logic (invented very recently, in 1987). I have also studied, long and hard, before it became fashionable, Category Theory. Category Theory is literally a rigorous structuralism, a bunch of rules of manifest interest. (Nobody knows if it can replace Set Theory as a Foundation of Mathematics; practitioners don’t care, it’s too useful to give them time for deep meditation.)

My rough (philosophical) conclusion from all this esoterica: any logical system (including categories) consists, at the very minimum of:

1) a set of rules (it could be diagram chasing in a category). Call that the ‘logic‘.

2) a universe of symbols to which these rules apply. Call that the ‘universe‘ (in which that logic operates).

The way I look at it, this corresponds to the way the brain is organized:

 1) corresponds neurologically to an axonal system (including dentrites).

 2) corresponds to the regions (in the brain) the logic starts from (it will varied places, as inputs internal, or external, vary).

Sensation, moods, emotion, neurohormonal regimes act as meta-controllers, upon both the logic and the universe. For example in case of hyper stress, automatic meta controllers acting on gateway neurons will shut down parts of the brain by starving them of oxygen, and redirect oxygen and fuel towards areas indispensable for survival. So the brain’s logic is controlled by moods, as meta.



Once I was delicately crossing a famous and notorious ice gully equipped just with an ice axe and rock climbing slippers. At the worst moment, I looked up, and saw a cloud of rock silently forming up in the sky, 600 meters higher. I started to run, in the hope of reaching the rock on the other side first. However, the avalanche from the partial collapse of said mountain hit my ropes just as I made it to a vertical slab. (The shoulder of that mountain entirely collapsed later, a famous case in Chamonix).

Torn off rock holds, I fell off, facing certain long and painful demise down the mile high gully of death (and the death of my partner, who had a lousy belay. From cracks in the one and only mineral block in that ice gully). I had a last thought: not only was I airborne, but I was dead, that was it, survival probability was strictly zero.

However my brain, in a miraculous feat I cannot not believe, to this day, succeeded to block me between vertical walls, one of ice, the other of granite, in a chimney position. All the more remarkable as I had only rock slippers (not mountain boots). The amount of unbelievable precision and giant neuronal power to unleash colossal force to stop the already long fall was only possible because all my brainpower was applied only where it mattered.

There was no thinking whatsoever. Actually it’s clear that after I had the thought that I was going to die, fir sure, the brain shut down all and any thinking. Consciousness was useless, it just stood in the way, so there was none. Pain and fear did not exist: they were irrelevant.

Thinking, consciousness, pain and fear were obviously completely shut down. All that was left was tremendous will power, enormous mathematical power and the capability to generate an enormous action potential in millions of motor neurons to create gigantic force.

After I stopped in other inhuman feats, I jumped out of the chimney position, grabbed rock and solo climbed ten  meters up to a terrace. It felt like jumping up. When I got to the terrace, and looked at lots of abraded arms, I just could not believe what had happened.  I still do not.

Cogito, ergo sum“, said Descartes. But where does cogito, ergo and sum fit in this gory scene? Nowhere.

Superstitious people who love slogans would just say that “God” took over. Whatever kicks their simplicity.

Clearly what happened has been related many times in similar incident: all my brain’s energy got concentrated exactly where it could make a difference, in a particular application of elementary mechanics, with maximum motor neuron power. Completely extinguishing the rest of brain activity.

Many years ago, a famous solo French sailor, Alain Colas, was in a race in the middle of the ocean. A loop of rope suddenly snapped around his ankle, and nearly completely severed his foot, causing severe blood loss. He had to make a tourniquet to save his life, administer first aid, then bring down his sails, on his giant boat, also to save his life, then try to give the alert. All of this while dragging foot and nerves on the deck. But he did not feel the pain, and he did not go into shock. That happened only when he was done with the essentials.

Anybody who is real hard and has experienced the grand outdoors hundreds of time, will have a similar story to relate.



Waking up from total exhaustion one has first the sensation of existing (“I am!”, or: “I seem to be!”) , well before one starts thinking anything remotely organized, or logical. That could certainly be proven by e-m brain studies, BTW.

Somebody in very deep coma demonstrably exists, while often not being in thought, deep or not.

Actually anybody familiar with heavy exercise knows they can reach points where he or she is, but do not too well what anything, including themselves, is all about. They are, but they don’t really think. So being precedes thinking, elaborated or not. When I run uphill at 3,000 meters for more than fifteen minutes, it tends to do this to me, for example.

Moods provide (part of) the context that a logic needs. How does a baby learn the meaning of words? Not from a dictionary, but from emotions. Emotions come first, they provide the semantics of the world, for any growing human mind. I should go back in the essay and point that out, so thank you Paul!

Thus, at first sight, it’s amazing Descartes, an army captain, could make such a mistake. Did he have an agenda? He did.



I am tough on “Cogito Ergo Sum”, but I should not be so on his author. Indeed there are twists in this story.

Three centuries after Descartes, Sartre, raising the flag of so called French Existentialism, claimed that existence precedes essence (l’existence précède l’essence”). That reverted the philosophical view that the essence nature of something is more fundamental and immutable than its existence (Aquinas defined god as the thing where existence = essence…). So, if one thinks of the essence of man, as one should, to be thinking, then Sartre was (unwittingly?) saying that thinking was emergent.

Descartes was a genius, if there ever was one: he invented analytic geometry, making calculus possible. So why did he say something as absurd? Well, if man existed just from his thinking, it was not because of God.

Descartes’reasons were grounded in anti-theocracy, subtlety and the advancement of civilization. His new aphorism, “Cogito Ergo Sum“, was iconoclastic.

But iconoclasm yesterday, doctrine tomorrow. Compare the way Descartes broke new ground with his aphorism to the return to primitive theocracy of a modern celebrity such as Václav Havel advocates. Said that otherwise very honorable one: “… one great certainty: Consciousness precedes Being, and not the other way around, as Marxists claim…”. Havel would go oncondemning ours as “the first atheist civilization“, which “has lost its connection with the infinite and with eternity“.

Descartes’ mood was to go where no mind had gone before. Neo-conservatives are rather in the mood of going back again where the logic has thoroughly proved not to be sustainable. No wonder the birth rate is collapsing in such parts.


Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , ,

14 Responses to “I AM, & SOMETIMES I THINK”

  1. Bernard M Says:

    C’est plutot: je pense donc j’essuie….. la merde que les plutocrates ont semmée!
    Buongiorno da Bologna


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I have repeated myself quite a bit about the plutocrats. I am rather pleased that finally the gigantic criminal organization known as banking is increasingly becoming something that reasonable people will find hard to deny the nature of. See;

      I intent to give a summary soon of my long held position. However geniuses such as Krugman do not apparently even understand MMT (Modern Monetary Theory)… Which I discovered all by myself, before discovering that MMT was well known, except by the likes of Krugman, who seem to understand nothing to banks… This has serious practical repercussions…

      Anyway, so I am, I think…


  2. Old Geezer Says:

    Now we are talking. And what, exactly is thinking? Makes you stop and think.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear OGP: I have an essay at the ready which tackles thinking itself, among other thoughtful activities. I don’t remember what’s in it exactly, but an idea is that “thinking” ought to be considered different from “consciousness”.
      Thinking can be proclaimed with any entity that satisfies the Turing test. That is, if it sounds or look intelligent, as intelligent as a human being, it is declared to be thinking. Of course, a problem is that many people, when casually met, such as Valley Blondes, do not satisfy the Turing test. It rather seems they would have to be submitted to the question to exhibit any imagination.
      So, by the way, I believe Artifical Imagination is possible, with existing technology.


  3. Paul Handover Says:

    The excitement of the last few days had me awake at 3.30am this morning and reading this tantalising essay (and I’m not talking about the kind references to yours truly and his doggie Blog!)

    I say tantalising deliberately because it’s clear from the above that there is a half-hidden world within our own heads that flirts with us, and then what do I mean by ‘us’!

    As it happens two experiences while we were away in Oregon illustrate both the obvious and the less obvious aspects of self, the conscious and the unconscious mind.

    The first is the obvious. The woman who made the connection between us and our real-estate agent was Kim, owner of Wingspann Farms in Williams, Oregon, see http://www.wingspannfarm.com/index.php She specialises in breeding Haflinger Horses that come from Austria.

    We went over to see her and walk around the facilities and admire the horses. In one small paddock was a young four-month-old colt that had been given to the farm by the inexperienced owner. That owner had, for reasons not made clear, starved the colt of human contact or, indeed, contact with any other animal.

    The young horse was nervous, extremely cautious of strangers coming even remotely close to him, and easily spooked. Here in Payson we have a dog called Lupy that Jean rescued many years ago. Lupy was so badly treated by so-called humans when she was a puppy that it took Jean six months before she could touch Lupy. Took me almost a year before Lupy trusted me, yet now she comes up to me and I can place my face alongside her head.

    So in terms of the hidden world of emotional development for humans, dogs and horses (and many other animals for sure), most people understand and are conscious of the need for love, affection and tenderness during those critical early years and the consequences of denial. That’s obvious.

    OK, on to the second example, this of the unconscious mind.

    Driving back, we were somewhere along the I17 between Flagstaff and Camp Verde in Arizona. A section of the highway was reduced by roadworks to a single lane. I was motoring along at around 50mph.

    Also relevant in terms of appreciating my state of mind was that I had been woken by the dogs in our hotel room at 5am and that by 7.30am we had breakfasted, packed the car and were away. This was the third day of a 1,200 mile car journey and I was not as fresh as a daisy!

    Anyway, back to that single lane. From my right I noticed a coned off lane that was directing traffic onto the highway. In other words giving cars coming onto the highway the opportunity of filtering from the ramp on to the main highway.

    I vaguely noticed a SUV or similar coming up the ramp to join the highway. It was more or less tracking along parallel to us at the same speed as we were and would be slowing down to filter in behind us.

    Except that it didn’t! The driver was talking on a cell phone, taking no notice of the world around him and proceeded to join the highway as if it was clear of traffic.

    So in the same way that Patrice talks of his unconscious mind getting on with the gargantuan task of saving his body, so my unconscious mind instantly assessed that this cretin of a driver was going to side-swipe us and push us off the highway down a steep embankment. That mind of mine computed that I had maybe 4 or 5 feet to my left, that I had to swerve off the roadway onto that gravel edge in, perhaps 1/20th of a second, accelerate to get ahead of the other vehicle, and then steer back onto the highway before hitting a parapet coming up maybe no more than 1/2 second ahead of us.

    Afterwards I was furious, angry and wanted revenge.

    But only after reading this Post did I fully recognise the power, the hidden power, of this tired, 67-year-old, brain that took control for perhaps a couple of seconds and saved me, Jeannie and three dogs from a serious, possibly fatal accident.

    Ergo, thinking is clearly not only what defines us but also what saves us!

    Great post, Patrice.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Paul! I much appreciate, especially from someone like you, having balanced the noble worth of life versus what we should do. I put a lot of…thinking in that essay. The mind, or more exactly, the brain, is much vaster, not to say greater, than what one usually suspects. One interesting clue is that to understand the mind of a horse, we have to anthropologize it… And that is the correct procedure (contrarily to the claims, in recent decades, of those who try to understand animals by denying them anything human). The mind of a horse is vast enough that pieces of it equate to pieces, maybe simplified pieces, but pieces nevertheless, of a human brain…

      I have ridden stallions in Africa…
      One of them, called Napoleon (!), only me could ride. History is stranger than fiction… Could never got to used to cow-like Euramerican horses…


  4. Old Geezer Says:

    Interesting tale, Paul. I am still not sure that “thinking” saved you from that SUV. Rather, it was your unconscious brain that fed into your very primitive (and unthinking) amygdala producing the necessary corrective action to save you.

    So much of ourselves “run” without our concsious attention. We breathe; we digest food and provide countless nutrients to our bodies; we compute closing rates at freeway speeds to merge into traffic (which would take a massive computer) while talking to our passenger.

    And we are trying to figure out that brain with… our brain.

    Can we do it?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      What OGP is saying is close to what I believe. Actually, in an essay I have, more or less at the ready, “thinking” is defined. And it’s not something that was defined before (I am re-reading some of the work of Alan Turing, to make sure of several of my angles; Turing is very interesting, and not just because of what he said, but also because of what he was careful to avoid).
      My basic idea is that thinking is the process of modifying the brain. That will generally tend not to be fast, Thus, in cases of very fast action, it’s pre-existing circuitry that is used… No thinking involved. Brains require thought to evolve, but none to perform.

      And consciousness in all this? A spur on thought. But thinking does not require consciousness.
      These are some of the main points of the essay I am working on…


  5. Paul Handover Says:

    Reading both OGP’s reply and yours, it’s clear that I was still stuck with some habitual ideas when I wrote my own comment! Yes, of course, thinking is a deliberative process very different to the core undertakings of the brain as it manages the body. Indeed, one of my many cliches is the phrase, “I’m giving it a coating of thought” which more than implies a reflective approach compared to the brain running the body.

    We watched a fascinating film last night by Tom Shadyac called ‘I Am’ that will be the subject of a post on Learning from Dogs on the 27th. One of the many interesting aspects of the film was the percentage of shared genetic code between humans and many warm-blooded animals, often well over 90%.

    So speaking of our animal cousins in human terms is totally appropriate! Animals respond exactly as humans do in the areas of love, integrity, compassion, touch and so on.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul: The problem with genes, is that they mostly code for meat (proteins, about one million (?) in the human body, to be studied in protenomics)… What inheritance consists of, in all its glory, is not clear to me yet… Darwin, BTW, may not have invented evolution (…) but he believed that animals’ were very close to human psychologically, he wrote a book on that…

      I think the way to think of consciousness is as the top brass of a ship. And how to think of thinking, then? Well thinking is building the ship anew to handle more threats, opportunities or necessities out there. Then the whole crew gets to work. And if the work is extensive, say after getting one’s mighty soul shipwrecked on a reef, engineers get in play, diverting important resources, and if that’s not enough, go on strike, the pathos itself being necessary to attract more resources, etc.

      The more far vision the consciousness has, the more conscience. But consciousness and conscience are not necessary for thinking. At least that’s one of my points. Artificial Consciousness is different from Artificial Thinking, and both of course different from Artificial Intelligence (Turing Test, an “Imitation Game” taht can be purely mimicked by memorization, as Alan Turing’s own semantics indicates…)
      We have AI now, but still another type of AI is possible, with existing tech. AC and AT are out of reach of present tech, but primitive AT is imaginable… (And already faked with software.)


      • Paul Handover Says:

        I keep feeling a headache coming on when I try and get my mind/brain/body/ego/whatever around these concepts!! 😉


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Paul: it reminds me of my baby. She screams (playfully), and runs away, when I brandish 4 fingers on each hand, and say: 4 + 4 = 8… She can conceive of numbers better when the cardinal is tied to an explicit example, such as :”5, doctor Ryan” (because doctor Ryan is on floor 5).

          I am delaying my next one on THINKING, because I want to understood better first the mood of Alan Turing and company, such as why they neglected Quantum physics… (Clearly a mistake, and clearly they did not have to do it, and, even more luminously, ignoring it allowed them to answer practical questions. Yet…)
          I also thought everybody needed a vacation…


  6. JR Says:

    Subject: I AM, & SOMETIMES I THINK

    D’accord! La pensée ne peut avoir qu’un seul support, la matière cérébrale, le cerveau!
    Pour fréquenter des équipes médicales qui analysent une très grave maladie infantile, l’autisme, je suis ses conclsuions: chez le jeune enfant, se construisent des milliards de connections entre les cellules du cerveau, les neurones. Le nombre de connections possibles atteindrait même le nombre…de protons dans l’Univers! Il peut exister chez le bébé une très grave maladie mentale due à un dérèglement de ce système qui voit le développement de véritables cartes mentales.
    Ainsi la bagarre entre les les psychanalystes de la lignée Freudienne (qui préfèrent inculper les attitudes de la mère) et les neuro-biologistes: toute la pensée vient de la matière.
    Mais ceci ne résout pas le problème des origines, de l’homme, de l’univers,etc…ni de notre libre arbitre! La récente identification du boson de Higgs en est le témoin, qui ramène à la question: “d’où venons-nous, que sommes nous, où allons-nous?”, illustrée magnifiquement par P.Gauguin et en dépôt à Boston.
    Je l’ai vue à..St Pétersboug, ptétée à l’Ermitage.

    Je te conseille aussi un livre très intéressant, “lhomme neuronal” de Jean Pierre Changeux, collection Pluriel Sciences chez Hachette pour réfléchir à de sujet: la matière, oui, mais pourquoi? C’est vertigineux!
    A bientôt


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Ave Jacques!

      Et bien c’est bien, on est d’accord! Si je retrouve ma copie de “l’homme neuronal” je jetterai un coup d’oeil. Mais aujourd’hui je vais en Alaska (reunion de famille). Les tous recents travaux montrent l’importance des astrocytes (un type de cellule gliales avec leur propre reseau). Le nombre de connection est effectivement plus qu’astronomique…

      Pour le Higgs, c’est un grand success du CERN et des depenses d’etat pour la recherche fondamentale. Le “Modele Standard” depend crucialement du champs de Higgs qui cree la masse de certaines particles (la relativite’ cree aussi beaucoup de la masse). Ceci dit les resultata tendent a indiquer de subtiles deviations du modele le plus simple. En fait des tas the physiciens ont exploites l’idee dite de Higgs, suggere’ initialement par un theoretician de l’etat solide, Anderson (qui a recu le prix Nobel il y a longtemps pour d’autres recherches, et qui meprise la physique des hautes energies!)

      Bon, direction l’Alaska, ils ont la plus grande migration de saumons qu’il y a jamais eu, la ou on va, la riviere Kinai, les pecheurs se ruent du monde entier, pas une place dans les hotels…
      Il va falloir que je me prepare, je file vers l’aeroport dans deux heures, et je suis zero pret…


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: