*Gregg,*
I am amazed and bedazzled by your capabilities of horizontal
integration. Kudos!Awe-inspiring!
Let us today discuss before we decide what to put, how to put for
verification. The challenge with ALCCO is that is not a one statement or
one paragraph that resolves all the problems. It is made of close to 170
smaller parts that are associated in levels to make the theory. So as to
genuinely build it by consensus and verification. Probably these 170
parts will have to be clubbed by meaning into a sensible number of say
17-20, then put each to vote along with associational relations to
create genuine consensus.
*Brent, *
I saw the system 'canonizer' you have put together.
Superb. I loved it. The resource could have a great/bright future. I
believe I can contribute to its technology, making & polishing. We
should discuss it separately or schedule a zoom call.
Furthermore, it has striking similarities to a project we are working
on. It's titled 'Book of Ethics'. The foundational principle of which
is to create a consensus based ethics system keeping in mind different
markers like ecosystem, cultures etc. with a blockchain and a
proprietary evaluation technology at the back-end. The reason for me to
do it is fast depletion of religion & rise of the money churning Gurus!
This is captured is my short book from series called 'Living - Vol. 4
Concealment, Morality, Lies'. I have enclosed the relevant extract from
the Book.
In the process of designing the architecture, there are many
realizations that came to our mind, which will be interesting for
Canonizer. One of the critical things we realized is that in complex
issues the majority of disputes and problems infest not the small axioms
and facts quoted but the inferences and dependencies that are created.
And till this is systematically addresses, the system becomes a voting
mechanism rather than 'amendable, consensus building'.
TY
DL
On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 05:57 easalien, <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Appreciate all the feedback. Many of you have interesting questions
on the subject and hopefully we can resolve them to the best of my
ability.
To Cory, Generating the model has been a piecemeal process that’s
taken nearly a decade. While not explicitly influenced by any given
individual or philosophy, the diagram expresses an intuition towards
symmetry, how things fit together. It merely started as an objective
attempt to understand my own personal experience, which veered
between extremes. Ironically, there was no expectation of solving
anything, but solutions revealed themselves over the course of the
discovery. Plenty of books, scientific publications, documentaries,
and personal history contributed, but a special shout-out to Brian
Greene’s Fabric of the Cosmos. Reading that out of high school
started everything.
To Deepak, haven’t had a chance to fully watch your presentation,
but look forward to learning more about the ALCCO approach. The
complexity of the theory requires some intensive thought. However,
does ALCCO make predictions that the community could verify?
To Gregg, finally had the chance to watch your interview with
Vervaeke(?) and I found it thoroughly engaging. Looking forward to
future episodes. Was wondering what you thought about the event
horizon interpretation as a possible resolution to the Mind/Body
Problem. There seems to be a form of Relativity involved.
To Cole, I’ll reach out to your colleague. Appreciate the heads-up.
The linguistic difficulty you mention stems from an inability to
define the wave-function in QM. The error arises when one assumes
Potential is a “real” thing. Obviously it exists (sort of), but it
doesn’t share the limitations of real objects. It is nonlocalized
and collapses upon observation, explaining Einstein’s “Spooky action
at a distance.” The Potential manifests dualistically in QM
(probability) and GR (center of gravity), informing a new approach
to Quantum Gravity. As it turns out, an inability to define terms is
also a major problem in consciousness theory, i.e. defining
consciousness w/o using synonyms, e.g. awareness, perception, sense,
knowledge, understanding, etc.
To Nicholas, I appreciate your desire to understand so I’ll
facilitate however I can. As it turns out, understanding the
mathematics isn’t as important as understanding the processes
represented therein. Even equations break down at the point of the
singularity, and Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems preclude a
mathematical Theory of Everything (TOE). The math I cited only
requires basic algebra, and much of the theory is actually
predicated on identities, e.g. Hubble-Schwarzschild radius
equivalence. If you’re unfamiliar with the underlying physics, I
recommend PBS Spacetime videos on YouTube. They offer easy-to-follow
primers on the subject. Brian Greene’s Fabric of the Cosmos was my
initiation into the topic. Don’t be intimidated. The solutions are
surprisingly simple.
To Brent, Wonderful job collating all the prevailing theories on the
subject. It’s a valuable resource and I look forward to
participating. Admittedly, part of me doubts the consensus-based
approach due to a lack of coherent definition on the subject, but
hopefully it can focus the diaspora. Truth be told, I haven’t
settled on a name for the theory. I’ve been vacillating between
Origin Theory, Identity Theory, Mosaic Theory, etc. However, given
the broken symmetries and Gestalt psychology involved, I suppose
Mosaic is the most fitting. The theory acknowledges the existence of
qualia, but instead of treating it as an irreducible aspect of mind,
qualia are a function of comparative memory, i.e. Relativity of
Experience. By treating the Mind/Body Separation as an event
horizon, the concept resolves substance dualism by treating the mind
as a strongly emergent extension of the body predicated on
individual and genetic memory, which contribute to one’s unique
sense of the world. The meme is the most applicable analogy.
On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, Brent Allsop
<[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi Eric and Deepak,
Exciting to see two new (to me at least) models of
consciousness. We’re working to build and track, comparatively,
how much consensus can be built around the best theories of
consciousness in the Theories of Consciousness
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DTheories-2Dof-2DConsciousness_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fElfvcMPlDBTofULXzUHsvmLTnPa4V3H447A9pwA12A&s=osrt_koTS5iZN0j3FbI6OzGSq1i-wAB7J1FX5i0t1X8&e=>
topic on Canonizer
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fElfvcMPlDBTofULXzUHsvmLTnPa4V3H447A9pwA12A&s=MbOewP4bfE5FWskYzdNyY4weUl6INQhd6JiPTy0VgCk&e=>.
Almost 60 people have ‘canonized’ their view, to date. The
focus is on what the various theories agree on, pushing the
disagreeable stuff out of the way of consensus, into lower level
supporting sub camps.
You can see from the numbers by each camp how much consensus
there is for that camp. You can see that the root node shows 57
+ total participants. (you can support more than one camp,
causing fractional values) Of those 57 participants, 51 support
the “approachable via science
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DApproachable-2DVia-2DScience_2&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fElfvcMPlDBTofULXzUHsvmLTnPa4V3H447A9pwA12A&s=NxgNZ54MtFrkXtKweu17N2G3ChZaWDiWveNpapIAavg&e=>”
camp. You can see the competing camps of people that believe
consciousness isn’t approachable via science
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DUnapprochable-2DVia-2DScience_57&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fElfvcMPlDBTofULXzUHsvmLTnPa4V3H447A9pwA12A&s=Qh3lqm66IYqbbvIW-JCUwSj63lESFZDS-23ESavYi5w&e=>.
40 of these 51 “approachable” people support the next level
consensus camp: “Representational Qualia Theory
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fElfvcMPlDBTofULXzUHsvmLTnPa4V3H447A9pwA12A&s=kOdVpKpBjp4FupAnSIQgMAyKe54hZT8EZugJMOiPxjg&e=>”.
This is just the basic idea that we have qualia, which our brain
uses to represent visual conscious knowledge with and such. All
of the sub camps under that are all making falsifiable
prediction about the nature of qualia.
It would be great to get both the “black hole, Spontaneous
Symmetry Breaking” (do you have a name for this?) model and the
“ALCCO approach” canonized, to see how much these theories agree
with other theories, and how much consensus can be built,
compared to other competing theories.
We’re working on some videos of our own, primarily explaining
the current emerging consensus “Representational Qualia Theory
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fElfvcMPlDBTofULXzUHsvmLTnPa4V3H447A9pwA12A&s=kOdVpKpBjp4FupAnSIQgMAyKe54hZT8EZugJMOiPxjg&e=>”.
If you are interested, here is an early draft of one of the
chapters: *Representational Qualia Theory Consensus_FullHD.mp4
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_file_d_1kSsPxAJKs6vQ-5F46TKZgQbPOCod85BVVd_view-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fElfvcMPlDBTofULXzUHsvmLTnPa4V3H447A9pwA12A&s=GVG6XTSA0Fpe9-4GZtxwoWW6C3MTNubJ1h4mjuK1Wro&e=>*
I’m assuming both of your theories predict that we do have
qualia, as this emerging consensus seems to agree we do. Eric,
I didn’t see any mention of qualia in your models?
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:05 PM Deepak Loomba <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Nicholas,
Talking about my current work - 'Awareness and consciousness
- Discovery distinction and evolution. The New Upanishad' is
based on first principles with detailed descriptions and
definitions and links (so it is pretty much self contained).
All one needs is high school physics for it.
Truly yours
Deepak Loomba
On 9/17/2020 4:06 AM, Nicholas Lattanzio wrote:
> I actually meant to address both of you, not sure if I
> forgot to hit reply all or not, I have a history of
> forgetting to do that.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 9:21 AM Deepak Loomba
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Slightly confused. Whether is this addressed to me or
> to Eric. I am a novice to group correspondence and
> realized it is important to address the mail.
>
> Truly yours
> Deepak Loomba
>
>
> On 9/16/2020 6:33 PM, Nicholas Lattanzio wrote:
>> Like Cole I am very interested in these models.
>> Especially after my 'awakening' sort of peak
>> experiences several years back. I took a physics
>> class in undergrad on chaos and complexity, but I've
>> never had a firm grasp on many of the concepts, and
>> certainly not the math.
>>
>> What would you recommend for me to do to better
>> understand your works without having to devote a
>> significant amount of time (which I don't have at
>> all) to basically taking courses (self-taught or
>> otherwise) on the physics involved?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 7:13 AM Cole Butler
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for sharing this, Eric. I don’t have time
>> to read it right now, but I’m going to make a
>> note to myself to read it at some point this week.
>>
>> I’m very intrigued, as I generally am of work
>> related to the nature/existence of consciousness,
>> by the proposed solutions this offers. I took a
>> course in my undergraduate on the Measurement
>> Problem. It was a philosophy course, taught by a
>> philosopher who had devoted his career to trying
>> to solve/understand the measurement problem in
>> QM. It was extremely insightful and interesting
>> to learn. Some time after completing the course,
>> I sat in on a colloquium he gave to our physics
>> department. However, the problem seemed to fall
>> on deaf ears. Fundamentally, this professor was
>> trying to show how conceptually confused we are
>> and the linguistic difficulty we face in even
>> discussing measurement and using particle/wave
>> language.
>>
>> Anyway, given the difficulty with which he had
>> strained himself to understand the measurement
>> problem, and the failure of the physics community
>> of as a whole, historically, to solve it, I’m
>> intrigued by your offering a potential solution
>> that is so parsimonious while also solving other
>> difficult problems within physics.
>>
>> You might find it useful to share your work with
>> this professor - his name is Barry Ward at the
>> University of Arkansas. I could probably dig up
>> his email if you can’t find it online, but would
>> like to share it with him. Feel free to let him
>> know that one of his old students referred you if
>> it’d be helpful.
>>
>> My best,
>>
>> Cole
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 7:51 AM Henriques, Gregg
>> - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Deepak. I look forward to learning
>> more about this during our zoom call later
>> this week.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>
>> *On Behalf Of *Deepak Loomba
>>
>>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2020 5:04 AM
>>
>>
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: Strong Emergence of Consciousness
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> I conceptualized ALCCO Approach, which has
>> been found worthy by many leading lights of
>> our time.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have generated a theory for evolution of
>> 'intent' from spontaneity or as Jeremy
>> Sherman puts it - 'the striving self'. The
>> approach discovers & distinguishes between
>> Awareness, Life, Cumconsciousness and
>> Consciousness of an observer. In a list of
>> discoveries
>>
>> I made - the most important for psychologists
>> is that of awareness: Awareness is inverse of
>> stimuli-response-latency subject to three
>> conditions.
>>
>>
>>
>> ALCCO is also compatible with most advanced
>> neurocognitive approaches. It beautifully
>> explains the differences between local and
>> general anesthesia induced local and general
>> 'unconsciousness', deep sleep unconsciousness
>> and unconsciousness during a collapse
>>
>> and death. It also explains, why human body
>> parts do not die with person - we routinely
>> are transplanting 'live' parts of dead people
>> into other people alive. And all of this has
>> been explained in a physico-logical approach.
>> Undeniably some abductive thinking
>>
>> and reasoning is used, but it is largely
>> using deductive and inductive reasoning.
>>
>>
>>
>> My talk on ALCCO Approach, presented at the
>> currently on-going 'Science of Consciousness'
>> conference at Tucson, Univ. of Arizona is
>> available @
>>
>>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_P-2DAX7X1-2D3ww-3Ft-3D4625&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=u08Zo3UKKqPiLDq6WUXFjR27PZ6xLnrDXWH3nAHRDu0&s=HgXb0Jb3ghO0uAj-kVJaAOpNl_oxxIerfVzGCctgw3o&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_P-2DAX7X1-2D3ww-3Ft-3D4625&d=DwMDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=JLS7W3H5-VbAYmmon62sekbHt1F9-qaj4CqTwCEj_ac&s=ulbqogGnyNc0w4pN_KGmmISCF1rB6teFDHuGnjYUnVM&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> Summary of the Book 'Awareness &
>> Consciousness - Discovery, Distinction &
>> Evolution - The New Upanishad' with (i)
>> Preface, (ii) Foreword, (iii) Contents of
>> Entire Book & a (iv)summarized content is
>> available @
>>
>>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1fr2hE8ER-5FIxIaE8tSws2dMcsql9yuiuSPUmo6mKVrnU_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=u08Zo3UKKqPiLDq6WUXFjR27PZ6xLnrDXWH3nAHRDu0&s=vxM5UBcv7WtUKbMIl8svUOS6IvwYgmAkjSVfOqjTz1c&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1fr2hE8ER-5FIxIaE8tSws2dMcsql9yuiuSPUmo6mKVrnU_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=JLS7W3H5-VbAYmmon62sekbHt1F9-qaj4CqTwCEj_ac&s=MsKKY0IamnhiwZ40q2kaCX1CK7hzaBa79s35hzfc7w4&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The book is available at
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.in_Awareness-2DConsciousness-2DUpanishad-2DDeepak-2DLoomba_dp_1692201220&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=u08Zo3UKKqPiLDq6WUXFjR27PZ6xLnrDXWH3nAHRDu0&s=KtR7NwHmpm637BQCUtaUWvYffr2fT1b85jF_QPRgmHI&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.in_Awareness-2DConsciousness-2DUpanishad-2DDeepak-2DLoomba_dp_1692201220&d=DwMDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=JLS7W3H5-VbAYmmon62sekbHt1F9-qaj4CqTwCEj_ac&s=44wVc7GwEPTJ89WBHO6eWtWQFk1o9s6lVBXRTASpc1g&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> Will love to access your critique and then
>> your support to polish the concept, refine it
>> along with you to make it worthwhile.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Truly yours
>>
>>
>> Deepak Loomba
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/16/2020 1:07 PM, Cory David Barker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am interested in exploring your work.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How long did it take you to generate your
>> model?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Who were your influences?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I will add, all universal,
>> transdisciplinary, integral models will
>> bare resemblance to each other, because
>> human morphology has innate
>> architectural, processual, and
>> calculatory universal classes of
>> experience which are common to our species
>>
>> biology, and which experience
>> autonomously organizes into.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 16, 2020, at 1:11 AM, easalien
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To the ToK Group:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Having recently joined this forum, I
>> could really use your collective
>> intelligence on this. Recent
>> advancements in research may be of
>> interest to you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Several months ago, I successfully
>> modeled consciousness as a black hole
>> analog using Spontaneous Symmetry
>> Breaking, e.g. Big Bang, Electroweak,
>> Baryogenesis, Homochirality, etc. The
>> Mind/Body Separation acts as an event
>> horizon predicated
>>
>> on Memory, i.e. Relativity of
>> Experience (solution to Hard Problem).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The attached model strikingly
>> resembles the ToK and appears to
>> solve outstanding problems in
>> physics, namely the fundamental
>> nature of reality (Potential, t=0),
>> Observer’s role in QM (Measurement
>> Prob), Hierarchy Problems (weakness of G
>>
>> & Λ), and Quantum Gravity (broken
>> symmetries due to G; Potential as
>> Graviton).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> While preparing for peer-review, I
>> would appreciate any insights the
>> group may have on the matter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_14qttxyDqPLcdrJNlh64htgtPKJO7pfQpvHTTiLneIDQ_edit&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=u08Zo3UKKqPiLDq6WUXFjR27PZ6xLnrDXWH3nAHRDu0&s=5nqcgt6r_ffXgsI_iMxuZ-p6g8POK7VB0ekEdMwSYO0&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_14qttxyDqPLcdrJNlh64htgtPKJO7pfQpvHTTiLneIDQ_edit&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=3bfjpoxZQg2Hgj8SYyWUtt7q36B-CUjFtoFflUcVPuo&s=enC2hNMgcEtgMsoiV7RrLIeDvhSHD4DaSQQPdACUsiQ&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric S.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> P.S. Here’s a condensed video
>> version:
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_playlist-3Flist-3DPLZEUEIClmzxJ-2DN0PhLzrd2DGgb-5F1DhAoH&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=u08Zo3UKKqPiLDq6WUXFjR27PZ6xLnrDXWH3nAHRDu0&s=CvuKtivdtjN_mBSnXHTxBhaiZoGxrSJxi-1K1sN3az4&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_playlist-3Flist-3DPLZEUEIClmzxJ-2DN0PhLzrd2DGgb-5F1DhAoH&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=3bfjpoxZQg2Hgj8SYyWUtt7q36B-CUjFtoFflUcVPuo&s=LWmXjUKU5gCehxPLOjxgbZ-I4ylQrkKRRKHZuzvjGlw&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L
>> list: write to:
>>
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> or click the following link:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> <DA9F6445-54A6-4974-980B-6817BDB83DE1.jpeg>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L
>> list: write to:
>>
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> or click the following link:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to:
>>
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> or click the following link:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>
>> write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> or click the following link:
>>
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> --
>> Cole Butler
>> Faculty Specialist
>> Project Coordinator: Treating Parents with ADHD
>> and their Children (TPAC
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__umdadhd.org_ongoing-2Dprojects-2Dand-2Dfunding&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8Y5BezWdoGXb7e_bbUSYghwchlFPS9885VC74CkDtX4&s=WIIMvoYzTYok2wSaNGkWkKAkvHGndc-8rD9oHzpHunk&e=>)
>> University of Maryland
>> UMD ADHD Lab
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.umdadhd.org_cole&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8Y5BezWdoGXb7e_bbUSYghwchlFPS9885VC74CkDtX4&s=RKC4MCcMNPmOPX-hKCR5e6yZ_j6Ij2pYIIswqmHjHdQ&e=>
>> 2103W, Cole Field House | College Park, MD 20742
>> tel 301.405.6163
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write
>> to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>>
> --
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
--
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
