On 07 Nov 2011, at 23:08, John Mikes wrote:
To Qentin: DEATH an excellent vaiation for immoprtality. I always
emphasize that ETERNITY is NOT a time indicator, can most likely
be timeless (POOF it is over).
To Bruno:
we wrote already about your 2c question WHO ARE WE? and you
answered
On 08 Nov 2011, at 20:56, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I would rather call this consciousness.
Indeed I agree with Dan that it is quite accurate to say that there
is no
person in the sense that experience is not personal, it doesn't
belong to
anyone (but it is very intimate with
. It might be a very long and
rough ride until they realize it, but it really is nothing compared to the
reward of finally being free (and recognizing it).
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32813776.html
Sent from
, but it is
still there, even if some materialist tend to deny that (which shows how far
we are removed from ourselves and reality, we actually ignore that which is
undoubtably and obviously true).
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation
as something that can be assigned to
people and time, we can say that, relatively speaking, I lacked
consciousness at a certain time, because there was no content of
consciousness that corresponded to that person at that time.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de
On 07 Nov 2011, at 21:02, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
But if you realize that there has never been a person to begin with,
But this contradicts immediately my present consciousness feeling. I
am currently in the state of wanting to drink water, so I am pretty
sure that there
fear becomes just a tool to sense whether there is an
actually imminent danger, not something that is constantly (whether
obviously or subtly) determining the way we live our lifes.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation
being conscious and not feeling to be a
seperate individual (an I). In science, we never have found any such thing
as an I.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32788734.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list
-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32788736.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 11/7/2011 9:50 AM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
How great was that?
I don't know. Being a fetus might be a peaceful experience, or like sleep.
But the point is that it doesn't matter how great the experience was,
So what's your evidence that there is *any* experience of being a
in general.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32788744.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
On 11/7/2011 12:02 PM, benjayk wrote:
I think we only fear the elimination of personhood because we confuse being
conscious as an ego with being conscious. We somehow think that if we in the
state of feeling to be a seperate individual cease to exist, we as conscious
beings cease to exist, which
To Qentin: DEATH an excellent vaiation for immoprtality. I always
emphasize that ETERNITY is NOT a time indicator, can most likely be
timeless (POOF it is over).
To Bruno:
we wrote already about your 2c question WHO ARE WE? and you answered
something like Gods.
That may be a cheap shot, but
Quentin,
On 30 Oct 2011, at 23:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
benjayk:
On the other hand, I don't see why we would ignore immortality of
consciousness, considering that the I is just a psychosocial
construct/illusion anyway. We don't find an actual I anywhere. It
seems
very relevant to know
2011/11/6 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Quentin,
On 30 Oct 2011, at 23:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
benjayk:
On the other hand, I don't see why we would ignore immortality of
consciousness, considering that the I is just a psychosocial
construct/illusion anyway. We don't find an actual I
On 06 Nov 2011, at 12:29, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/11/6 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
Quentin,
On 30 Oct 2011, at 23:51, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
benjayk:
On the other hand, I don't see why we would ignore immortality of
consciousness, considering that the I is just a psychosocial
Hi Dan,
On 03 Nov 2011, at 03:08, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey there,
I don't often post on this board, but I follow it quite frequently,
and perhaps I might inject a 'fresh voice' to rescue this thread of a
cul-de-sac of its own. It's essentially buddhist in nature rather than
mathematical
ourselves is true to what we really are.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32773084.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32773084.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group
:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32773421.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
to the
envy of immortality.
Neither
experientally, nor logically or scientifically.
You say so...
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32773421.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive
On 11/3/2011 7:07 AM, benjayk wrote:
There is no difference, as there is no your and mine consciousness.
Consciousness can not be owned, and can not be divided into pieces. There is
just consciousness.
It is very easily experientally confirmable: Do you ever experience anything
other than this
), and see the true greatness of what we are which is
beyond all of this. And this is immortal, with death merely being a relative
end, just like sleeping.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32767885.html
Sent from
would forget everything... it's the same thing as she had died.
Quentin
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32767885.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message
On 11/2/2011 11:45 AM, benjayk wrote:
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2011/11/1 benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2011/10/30 benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2011/10/30 benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Nick Prince-2 wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:10 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:00:56PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially in relation to QTI.
I'm
On 1 November 2011 21:07, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:07:31PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
This is where I am coming from:
I accept decoherence as the mechanism for suppressing interference
between universes and that this happens very quickly (no
Hey there,
I don't often post on this board, but I follow it quite frequently,
and perhaps I might inject a 'fresh voice' to rescue this thread of a
cul-de-sac of its own. It's essentially buddhist in nature rather than
mathematical or computational, so forgive me if I appear presumptuous,
or off
On 11/2/2011 7:08 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey there,
I don't often post on this board, but I follow it quite frequently,
and perhaps I might inject a 'fresh voice' to rescue this thread of a
cul-de-sac of its own. It's essentially buddhist in nature rather than
mathematical or
On 31 Oct 2011, at 23:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/31/2011 11:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why? Everett shows convincingly that, being a memory machine, when
we measure a superposition state, we just entangle ourself with the
superposition state, but this differentiate the consciousness/
identity - but it certainly isn't all that there is to it.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32760389.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message because you
[BM]
I don't think I understand it any better than you do. But ISTM we need a
quantum theory
of consciousness in order to write eqns like (3) above. In the standard
theory it implies
that there is some experience of both system states at the same time. A
change of basis
changes the
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:07:31PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
This is where I am coming from:
I accept decoherence as the mechanism for suppressing interference
between universes and that this happens very quickly (no time for us
to notice). So assuming the everett interpretation, there is
/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32760389.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
On 11/1/2011 1:07 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
[BM]
I don't think I understand it any better than you do. But ISTM we need a
quantum theory
of consciousness in order to write eqns like (3) above. In the standard theory
it implies
that there is some experience of both system states at the same
On 11/1/2011 2:07 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 01:07:31PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
This is where I am coming from:
I accept decoherence as the mechanism for suppressing interference
between universes and that this happens very quickly (no time for us
to notice). So
On 11/1/2011 3:40 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What do you mean by consciousness ? I don't care about eternal not me... it's the
*same* thing as death. When talking about dying, what's important is the person who die,
if something is left who doesn't know that it was that person... what does it
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/1 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2011/10/30 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2011/10/30 benjayk
On 31 Oct 2011, at 06:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2011 5:13 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Russell Standishli...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
My point about the unitary evolution was that the clicking of the
Geiger counter is not a unitary process - and until you hear it,
you
On Oct 31, 5:30 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/30/2011 5:13 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Russell Standishli...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
My point about the unitary evolution was that the clicking of the
Geiger counter is not a unitary process - and until
On 31 Oct 2011, at 06:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2011 5:09 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
A common response to the idea of QTI is, Why should I care if I die
and someone else in another world who thinks he is me survives? But
this objection shows a lack of understanding of consciousness
On 30 Oct 2011, at 10:34, benjayk wrote:
Nick Prince-2 wrote:
This is similar to my speculations in an earlier topic post
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/4514b50b8eb469c3/c49c3aa24c265a4b?lnk=gstq=homomorphic#c49c3aa24c265a4b
where I suggest that very
On 10/31/2011 6:01 AM, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:30 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/30/2011 5:13 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Russell Standishli...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
My point about the unitary evolution was that the clicking of the
Geiger counter
On 31 Oct 2011, at 18:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/31/2011 6:01 AM, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:30 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/30/2011 5:13 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Russell Standishli...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
My point about the unitary evolution
On 10/31/2011 11:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why? Everett shows convincingly that, being a memory machine, when we measure a
superposition state, we just entangle ourself with the superposition state, but this
differentiate the consciousness/memory of the machine, and she can feel the split.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 03:44:46PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
[NP]
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type multiverses
here, in which case I agree. What I was doing in my analysis was
thinking about QM type 3 multiverses only. Let's pretend that these
are the only
intuition (does it really seem probable that all persons
grow abitrarily old?) and with observation (people do actually die) than
other forms of immortality.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32746424.html
Sent from
2011/10/30 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
Nick Prince-2 wrote:
This is similar to my speculations in an earlier topic post
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/4514b50b8eb469c3/c49c3aa24c265a4b?lnk=gstq=homomorphic#c49c3aa24c265a4b
where I
[RS]
The question is - when did the cat become aware of which way the
electron was spinning as it left the Stern-Gerlach apparatus? I would
say it was when it discovered the vial didn't smash, and it was still alive.
The other question, from the DD perspective, is when did the sphere of
On 29 Oct 2011, at 20:07, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:44 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Nick Prince
nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type
multiverses
here, in which case I
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 05:10:34AM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
Well suppose the device triggers the flask smashing part of the
detector apparatus depending on whether the electron is moving up and
spinning up or vice versa as in my analysis. Also say it does this on
recieiving a click from one
innocent freshness of children - not
knowing who you are - we miss something that is absolutely essential to
life. It is not by chance that children are generally more open and happy,
and learn faster, than adults.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs
are generally more open and happy,
and learn faster, than adults.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32748927.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message
essential to
life. It is not by chance that children are generally more open and happy,
and learn faster, than adults.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32748927.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list
On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
My point about the unitary evolution was that the clicking of the
Geiger counter is not a unitary process - and until you hear it, you remain in
superposition.
- Show quoted text -
I thought that in the everett
On 10/30/2011 5:09 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
A common response to the idea of QTI is, Why should I care if I die and someone
else in another world who thinks he is me survives? But this objection shows a
lack of understanding of consciousness works if there are multiple
instantiations.
On 10/30/2011 5:13 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Russell Standishli...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
My point about the unitary evolution was that the clicking of the
Geiger counter is not a unitary process - and until you hear it, you remain in
superposition.
- Show quoted text -
I
On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially in relation to QTI. With a
standard treatment it looks as if there might be cul
On Oct 29, 1:53 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com
wrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially
On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type multiverses
here, in which case I agree. What I was doing in my analysis was
thinking about QM type 3 multiverses only. Let's pretend that these
are the
On Oct 29, 6:44 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type multiverses
here, in which case I agree. What I was doing in my analysis was
On Oct 29, 6:44 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type multiverses
here, in which case I agree. What I was doing in my analysis was
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 09:17:17AM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
Hi Stathis
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type multiverses
here, in which case I agree. What I was doing in my analysis was
thinking about QM type 3 multiverses only. Let's pretend that these
are the only
On Oct 27, 11:52 am, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Nick Prince
nickmag.pri...@googlemail.comwrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation
[NP]
Maybe you are thinking of Tegmark level 1 or level 2 type multiverses
here, in which case I agree. What I was doing in my analysis was
thinking about QM type 3 multiverses only. Let's pretend that these
are the only variety for the moment, then my analysis does indicate
that cul
On 28 Oct 2011, at 01:56, Nick Prince wrote:
[BM]
The QTI, or the more general comp immortality, or arithmetical
immortality is a complex subject, if only because it depends on
what
you mean by you.
[NP]
Can you be more specific on this?
Well, we have discuss this a lot on this list.
Thanks Bruno for being so patient with me and taking the time to
carefully answer my queries.
Nick
On Oct 28, 3:42 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Oct 2011, at 01:56, Nick Prince wrote:
[BM]
The QTI, or the more general comp immortality, or arithmetical
immortality is
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Nick Prince
nickmag.pri...@googlemail.comwrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially in relation to QTI. With a
standard treatment
On 10/25/2011 7:00 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially in relation to QTI. With a
standard treatment it looks as if there might be cul de sacs for a
dying cat. However I
On 26 Oct 2011, at 01:00, Nick Prince wrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially in relation to QTI. With a
standard treatment it looks as if there might be cul de sacs for a
dying cat. However
[CW]
I can't help with that unfortunately. My own TOE explains why QM may
be a misinterpretation to begin with (even though the observations and
predictions of QM are of course valid).
[NP]
Ok thanks for your comments Craig. I would be interested in your
TOE. If you have explained it on this
[JR]
I think such cul de sacs exist only from third person perspectives.
E.g.,
the experimenter's view of what happens to the cat. When considering
the
perspective from the first person (cat) perspective, there are no cul
de
sacs for a much simpler reason: The cat might be mistaken, dreaming,
or
[SPK]
Are we sure that this ordering, at the level of the state vectors,
really matters? We are, after all, only considering observables that
mutually commute and thus ordering should be irrelevant.
[NP]
Hi Stephen. I stressed the order because it is how the cat perceives
events and
On 10/27/2011 3:26 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
[SPK]
Are we sure that this ordering, at the level of the state vectors,
really matters? We are, after all, only considering observables that
mutually commute and thus ordering should be irrelevant.
[NP]
Hi Stephen. I stressed the order because
[BM]
The QTI, or the more general comp immortality, or arithmetical
immortality is a complex subject, if only because it depends on
what
you mean by you.
[NP]
Can you be more specific on this?
[BM]
Do you know Kripke semantic? A Kripke frame is just a set (of
elements
called worlds) with an
On 10/27/2011 4:56 PM, Nick Prince wrote:
With comp, and I think with QM,
there is no escapes from being conscious, in a way or another. I
don't
like that, but then it is a consequence of those theories.
Have you never been unconscious? Concussion? Anesthesia?
Brent
--
You received this
[SPK]
It seems to me that we have to take the environment of the system
into account, so we have to have a {environment in the equation, no?
From what I can tell, cul de sac's would have 3p consequences that
would have an effect on the distribution of branches. Maybe we should
On Oct 25, 7:00 pm, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com wrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
By the end of the first evolution due to Msg, the infinite
bundle of universes has partitioned into two bundles i.e. one bundle
of universes that have a Z spin up electron moving upwards
[NP]
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
By the end of the first evolution due to Msg, the infinite
bundle of universes has partitioned into two bundles i.e. one bundle
of universes that have a Z spin up electron moving upwards with a
neutral detector reading and an alive cat, and another bundle
On Oct 26, 11:29 am, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@googlemail.com
wrote:
[NP]
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
By the end of the first evolution due to Msg, the infinite
bundle of universes has partitioned into two bundles i.e. one bundle
of universes that have a Z spin up electron moving
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Nick Prince
nickmag.pri...@googlemail.comwrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially in relation to QTI. With a
standard treatment it looks as if there might
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:00:56PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially in relation to QTI. With a
standard treatment it looks as if there might be cul de sacs
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 06:58:15PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Nick,
I think such cul de sacs exist only from third person perspectives. E.g.,
the experimenter's view of what happens to the cat. When considering the
perspective from the first person (cat) perspective, there are no cul de
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 06:58:15PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Nick,
I think such cul de sacs exist only from third person perspectives.
E.g.,
the experimenter's view of what happens to the cat. When
On 10/26/2011 5:10 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:00:56PM -0700, Nick Prince wrote:
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially in relation to QTI. With a
standard treatment
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 08:02:02PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
I don't think it is possible to define personal discontinuation (death) in
terms of a local event or configuration that is setup in some corner of a
universe.
For instance, if the universe is infinitely big, one could recur
QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
I’m trying to get a picture of how David Deutsch’s idea of
differentiation works – especially in relation to QTI. With a
standard treatment it looks as if there might be cul de sacs for a
dying cat. However I think I can see why this conclusion could
87 matches
Mail list logo
