On 11 Feb 2009, at 18:30, Saibal Mitra wrote:
Welcome back Jack Mallah!
I have a different argument against QTI.
I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended.
Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the
QTI, the life expectancy of the
On 11 Feb 2009, at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote:
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Welcome back Jack Mallah!
I have a different argument against QTI.
I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended.
Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the
QTI, the life
You were not the simulated one in your dreams, hence you can't say anything
about its life expectancy... :)
2009/2/11 Saibal Mitra smi...@zonnet.nl
Welcome back Jack Mallah!
I have a different argument against QTI.
I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended.
Now,
Hello again, Saibal!
It is good to see that I am not alone here in taking a stand against QS/QI.
What do you think of my paper? Is it unclear, convincing, unconvincing?
Are there others like us who still post here?
Regards,
Jack
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Welcome back Jack Mallah!
I have a different argument against QTI.
I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended.
Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the
QTI, the life expectancy of the version of me simulated in
2009/2/12 Saibal Mitra smi...@zonnet.nl:
Welcome back Jack Mallah!
I have a different argument against QTI.
I had a nice dream last night, but unfortunately it suddenly ended.
Now, this is empirical evidence against QTI because, according to the
QTI, the life expectancy of the version of
6 matches
Mail list logo