Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 12 of 211 (632310)
09-06-2011 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-06-2011 10:56 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Hello RAZD,
In the other thread where this issue came up I was argueing this from a different direction.
From what I could tell of DB's posts, he believed that being willing and able to perform an action would yield a positive result of that action.
The action or task given in her example was to respond.
I was argueing that being willing and adble to respond did not mean that the target of that response received the response or was able to understand the response.
I did not really get into the discussions of alternate options to willing and able.
I was argueing the alternate results of the performed action with the given that the responder was both willing and able. Willing and able were given in my examples. In DB's example, being willing and able to respond would mean that communication had been acheived. I was argueing how even if they were willing and able, there are times when communication will still fail.
I will add to your post though...
Interesting, so I am unable or unwilling, to learn, correct. Can you give me another category, that is neither of these two
I agree that ambivalent is a good third option. But it points to a result as well. You would still be willing and able, but not acting upon it. There are also things that can respond that 'willing' does not apply to.
A plant defense response does not require any willingness. It is usually a direct response to mechanical damage. The plant is not willing or unwilling. It is however able to respond.
I am not sure how you would add something that willing or unwilling do not apply to into your chart though.
I found it easier to discuss this with the actual example DB put forward originally.
If you did want to add this to the discussion, or if DB does, I can add in.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 10:56 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2011 12:54 PM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-07-2011 1:46 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 17 of 211 (632408)
09-07-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
09-07-2011 1:46 PM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
Hello Catholic Scientist,
I dont really want to get into the next stage of the problem. I believe that RAZD is dealing with it one step at a time. However, it is impolite to let a question go unanswered.
I would think that being "able" to respond would include being heard and understood by the receiver, no?
No. Whateverit is that is producing the response may have the ability to respond (able) without being heard or understood by the receiver.
Here is the definition of response-
response - the act of responding; reply or reaction
here is the definition of communicate -
Communicate - To have an interchange, as of ideas.
Communicate - To express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood.
The task of responding can be completed without the target being able to hear or understand that response. Communication requires understanding.
I mean, lets say that they just couldn't reach the 'Talk' button on their transponder, so instead chose to just shout their message. That's technically "responding", but since the receiver can't hear them, then the sender is "unable to respond".
This is incorrect. By shouting the message, you have responded. You did not lose the ability to respond. You lost the ability to communicate. This is the whole point of the disagreement. You were willing and able to respond. You performed the action of response by shouting the message. Just because communication failed, it did not mean that you did not attempt communication with your reponse.
It pretty much has to be that way for Spock to be making any sense, doesn't it?
My point originally was that the two options Spock gave were not the only options. If Spock had used the word 'communicate', then the example would be correct. However, he used the word response, which means the example was not limited to the two options given.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-07-2011 1:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2011 9:55 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 19 of 211 (632450)
09-08-2011 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot
09-07-2011 11:35 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Hello Dawn Bertot,
What about these options...
willing & able - reply made - reply not received.
willing & able - reply not made
Neither of these options fit into the two options you have provided in your example.
In both options the ship is willing and able, yet not response was detected by the Enterprise.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2011 11:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 9:08 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 21 of 211 (632460)
09-08-2011 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Chuck77
09-08-2011 5:56 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Hey Chuck77,
Your post indicates that you are both willing and able to perform the task of responding.
Your post is a response.
You may have actually put another alternate option on the table.
You were willing and able to povide a response.
however, the response does not take us anywhere.
you have shown that you are both willing and able to provide a response.
On another note, I saw one of your first activities as a mod, the Flat Earth thread proposal.
When i read it I got the impression that he should have titled it : Can someone do my homework for me?

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Chuck77, posted 09-08-2011 5:56 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 25 of 211 (632492)
09-08-2011 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2011 9:08 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Am I missing something
yes you are. you are forgetting your example.
Upon not receiving any communication from the second vessel Spock gave two possible options:
they are either unwilling to respond or unable to respond.
Those are the two options that you say exist. no others.
willing & able - reply made - reply not received.
this is an example where the second craft is both willing and able to respond, but no response is received.
A third option that Spock did not recognise.
willing & able - reply not made
The second craft may be willing and able to reply, but is unaware that they have been hailed in the first place.
A forth option that Spock did not recognise.
The words willing and able are not the words that you are having trouble with. You seem to believe that the task of responding has to achieve successful communication in order to be completed.
this is a mistake on your part.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 9:08 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by rueh, posted 09-08-2011 4:15 PM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 32 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:39 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 29 of 211 (632607)
09-08-2011 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by rueh
09-08-2011 4:15 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Hello Rueh,
Butterflytyrant writes:
willing & able - reply made - reply not received.
this is an example where the second craft is both willing and able to respond, but no response is received.
A third option that Spock did not recognize.
your reply - I believe that in your example the term unable still applies. Especially if we use the definitions that RAZD provides in message 26.
The only task required is to possess the ability (able) to make a response (reply). Before I started typeing this reply, I was willing and able to reply. I had the necessary power and the will to respond. I was able to respond. If I choose not to respond, I do not lose the ability to perform the task of responding. I still am able.
The task of responding does not require communication to be acheived.
for example -
This is a typed response to you - In this message I have successfully completed the task of responding to reuh.
I just went outside and yelled - 'In this message I have successfully completed the task of responding to reuh.'
here is the same message in a foreign language - katika ujumbe huu mimi kuwa na mafanikio ya kumaliza kazi ya kukabiliana na reuh.
All three of the examples are replies. I have completed the task of responding. In the first example, I was willing and able to respond by typeing the message.
In the second example, I was willing and able to yell the message. The fact that you did not receive the message does not mean I have lost the ability to yell. I completed the task of responding.
In the third example. I again have successfully completed the task of responding. The fact that you do not understand the message does not mean i have lost the ability or willingness to formulate a response. It is clear I was willing and able to send the response because you are looking at it on your screen.
In each of the definitions it includes the adjective of necessary or needed.
The task is response. In all of my examples I had the needed or necessary powers to formulate the responses.
They are able to make a reply, but unable to make it in the necessary form that the Enterprise can recognize.
They are able to make a reply (response), but unable to make it in the necessary form that the Enterprise can recognize (communicate). The task is response, not communicate. The craft being unable to make it in a form the Enterprise recognises means they are unable to communicate, not unable to reply. Response and communicate are two different things with two different requirements.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by rueh, posted 09-08-2011 4:15 PM rueh has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
(1)
Message 35 of 211 (632626)
09-09-2011 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 12:39 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot,
I cant understand how you are missing the most important part of the equation over and over again.
Spock said tha craft was either unable or unwilling to respond. The task is responding. The task for the second craft is to respond. How can I make this clearer to you.
how about this -
TASK = RESPOND
Before you start typing a response to this message i want you to think about it for a second.
ask yourself these questions -
Are you willing to respond by yelling your answer?
Are you able to respond by yelling your answer?
The answer to those two questions is yes.
You are willing and able to respond to this post by yelling your reply.
No perform this task. Yell the answer.
....
You have now proven that you are willing and able to respond.
I did not hear the response.
I have not received your response.
This does not change the fact that you have completed the task of responding.
It does not matter if I am expecting a response or if do not undertsand the response. This makes no difference to the fact that you have responded.
You have completed the task of responding.
If "no response was recieved" then they were unable to answer the hail, because they made no contact with the enterprise, knowing a response was required
No, this is wrong. here, once again are the definitions of response and communicate. Please tell me which parts of these definitions you cannot understand -
Here is the definition of response-
response - the act of responding; reply or reaction
here is the definition of communicate -
Communicate - To have an interchange, as of ideas.
Communicate - To express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood.
Now, look at the definition of response. Please pay close attention to any parts of the definition of response that requires receiving the response. You will notice that there is no requirement for the second party to receive the response for the task of responding to be complete.
Please tell me which part of this you cannot understand.
Please answer this question. It is a yes or no question.
Do you understand that the task of responding can be completed without the second party receiving or understanding the response?\
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:39 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:20 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 36 of 211 (632627)
09-09-2011 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 1:19 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot,
The question BT is whether you can find another term Besides Wiiling or able that would define thier actions.
I have no problem with the terms willing and able. I never have. I have continually said that the problem you have is with the definition of respond and communicate. I have mentioned this many times now. New definitions of willing or able are not required. Your understanding of the definition of respond and communicate are required.
Now look at ti from Spocks point of view, if no contact was recieved by the enterprise, then it does not matter whether the 2nd ship was willing or able, they were not ABLE to contact the ship
The whole point I am making is that the 2nd ship may be both willing and able to respond. Saying that the were not able to contact the ship Enterprise means that they were not able to communicate. It does not mean they were not both willing and able to respond.
Ability in this instance does not mean they made an attempt, it means they failed and were unable to reach them to make communication
The response is the attempt. They may have made the attempt. This is their response. They have completed the task of responding. Failing to communicate does not mean that they did not respond. Being unable to reach them means that they failed to communicate. this does not mean that they did not respond. Responding and communicating are two different things.
Even Unaware by the second ship will translate into unable by both parties.
No it does not. How does being unaware make the ship unable to perdorm the task of responding. Lets say the second ship was unaware of the original hail. Does this mean that for some unknown reason, all of their communication devices fail all of a sudden?
I can yell my response to you. I am able to yell my response to you. I am willing to yell my response to you. Do you think that because you cannot hear me yelling that I become unable to yell?
The second ship is unable to recieve the transmission, even if they are unaware, therfore unable to make a response
No, this is wrong again. For exactly the same reason it has been wrong every other time you have said it. The 2nd ship does not lose its ability to respond if it is unaware of the original hail. The ship still has the ability to respond. The 2nd ships communications are in 100% tip top working order and they have the ability to succesfully communicate with any other vessel. The are both willing and able to perform the task of responding. If, for whatever reason, they do not respond, this does not mean that they lose their ability to respond.
Responding can be a 1 way transaction. The task of responding does not need to be succesfully received or understood in order to be completed.
I can jump, if I choose not to jump, I do not lose the ability to jump.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 1:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 8:52 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 61 of 211 (632900)
09-11-2011 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 5:20 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot,
my comment - I cant understand how you are missing the most important part of the equation over and over again.
yoru reply - Because you are so intent on making a point, your missing a simple one
I have been trying to make one single point for this entire debacle.
Here is your statement [msg=631034]
Here is an example, On the enterprise on one occcasion, Mr Spock stated to the Captain, "Captain there are only two logical possibilites, they are unable to respond, ther are unwilling to respond."
No matter the reason, it will fall sqaurely within those limited possibilites, or it will be a combination of both, but no more. Thats all existence will allow
What I am refuting is that the two options, unable to respond and unwilling to respond, are not the only two options. The key word I am focusing on to refute this is the word respond. The task that Spock is referring to is response. In this example, Spock says that the craft is either unable to respond, or unwilling to respond. The task is response.
Which makes your most recent post strange...
the tasks is not responding, the task is FOR YOU to find another word that is different than from willing or able, whether its me asking you to do it or its a scenario in a movie
Are you actually handicapped in some way? I do not mean this to be offensive. It is a serious question. The only way I can see that you do not consider the task to be responging in your example is if you cannot grasp the english language or you are challenged in some way. Respond is the only verb in the sentence. The only doing word is respond. It is the only possible task in your example.
In all of my posts, I have repeatedly told you that I have no problem with the words willing or able. Changeing those words to any other word that means willing or able will make no difference whatsoever to the reason I am refuting your original point. The word that is important is repond. The actual task that is being examined is response. You can select any words you want that mean willing and able and change the around if you want. Any words you like and it will make not one iota of difference to my arguement. At no stage have I ever had any complaint or comment with regards to the usage of these two words - willing, able. I have no idea why you keep trying to tell me that I need to come up with different versions of these words or focus on these words as they have no relevance to my arguement. They never have. At all. Ever.
For Spock to say that the second craft was either unwilling or unable to respond is not correct. I provided two other examples.
1. The craft did respond but the enterprise was not aware of this response. This means that the craft is both willing and able to respond, but Spock does not know about it. This is a third option. Spock saying they are either unwilling or unable to complete the task of responding is incorrect.
2. The craft did not know that Spock had hailed them in the first place. This does not change the fact that the second craft is both willing and able to respond. Their ability and willingness to respond has not been changed in any way. This is a forth option. Spock saying they are unwilling or unable to respond is incorrect.
You seem to even agree with me on at least the first one.
IF, they were willing and able to respond (did respond) and made no contact with the ship, they were still willing and able. But now pay even closer attention. Give me another word that is different than willing or able or another concept that is not described by thier actions.
The first half of this proves my point. The ship was willing and able to respond (did respond) and made no contact with the Enterprise. This is the third option I have been talking about. The second craft was willing and able to respond, but Spock did not get the response. The second half where you blather on about different words for willing and able is as irrelevent as it has always been. You have agreed with my point that there is a third option not covered in your original example.
Response is what made them willing and able, its a part of and combination of williing and able, its not something different
this does not make any sense.
Mr spocks wishes are not the point. What they did, is not the point. Whether they responded is not the point. Whether they were willing and able is not the point. Whether they were unwilling and unable, is not the point. Whether they were Willing but unable, is not the point, Whether they were able but not willing is not the point
Whether they were successful or unsucessful is not the point
From this paragraph you seem to be suggesting that your entire example had no point. Why the fuck did you use it?
The point is that there is no other words to decribe thier actions besides willing and able
At no stage have I ever had any complaint or comment with regards to the usage of these two words - willing, able. I have no idea why you keep trying to tell me that I need to come up with different versions of these words or focus on these words as they have no relevance to my arguement. They never have. At all. Ever.
Any actions by anyone anywhere for any reason will involve ONLY Willing and Able.
At no stage have I ever had any complaint or comment with regards to the usage of these two words - willing, able. I have no idea why you keep trying to tell me that I need to come up with different versions of these words or focus on these words as they have no relevance to my arguement. They never have. At all. Ever.
There are no other categories or options. If there is, provide the word
At no stage have I ever had any complaint or comment with regards to the usage of these two words - willing, able. I have no idea why you keep trying to tell me that I need to come up with different versions of these words or focus on these words as they have no relevance to my arguement. They never have. At all. Ever.
Just to make sure you are clear on my position with regards to the use of the words willing and able. At no stage have I ever had any complaint or comment with regards to the usage of these two words - willing, able. I have no idea why you keep trying to tell me that I need to come up with different versions of these words or focus on these words as they have no relevance to my arguement. They never have. At all. Ever.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2011 4:52 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 62 of 211 (632901)
09-11-2011 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 11:48 PM


Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives - 2nd the other dimensions\words
wrong. programing will only make the robot, able or unable to make a response. if it makes no response. it was unable to respond to an incoming message or hail. If there is no messageor hail, willing and able dont apply anyway
if it makes a faulty response, it was unable
If it responds and no one hears it, it was unable to complete its programing or purpose, even if it is not the computers fault
{snip irrelevent material}
But perhaps I am missing something
yes, you are missing something. You are missing it intentionally. The definition of response has been provided to you on several occasions now. Your misuse of the word response can only be intentional.
if it makes no response. it was unable to respond to an incoming message or hail.
Wrong. Check again the definition of response. The robot my be both willing and able but choose not to respond. This does not mean that it is unable.
if it makes a faulty response, it was unable
Wrong. Check again the definition of response. You have proven yourself wrong in the first 6 words of the sentence. "if it makes a faulty response". The task of responding has been completed. The robot was willing and able to make the response. The fact that it was faulty does not mean that the robot was unable to complete the task.
If it responds and no one hears it, it was unable to complete its programing or purpose, even if it is not the computers fault
Wrong. Check again the definition of response. Again, you have proven yourself wrong in one sentence. "if it responds" means that the task of responding has been completed. The robot was willing and able to respond. It has completed that task. Just because no one hears it, does not mean that the robot has not responded. The task is response. It was able to complete this task.
You have refuted your own position.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 11:48 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 67 of 211 (632976)
09-11-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
great then we agree that there can be no other area into which respons can fall, except willing or able.
I kept trying to tell you that because you seemed to be disagreeing with my orignal contention
Great, so we, atleast with you, have solved that problem
At no stage has this problem existed. It seems that you have created this problem. You have discussed it with yourself. Now you are suggesting that a problem that never existed has been resolved.
My problem, from the beginning has been that Spock provided two examples. I provided 2 more examples. I have outlined this problem on multiple occasions. You have yet to actually address the actual problem that I put forward in the beginning.
There are more than the two options that Spock put forward.
At no stage have I ever claimed that there was any issue with the words willing and able. There is no problem for us to agree or disagree upon with these two words. In our discussion, that issue has been created by you, discussed by you and now apparently solved by you.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2011 4:52 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2011 10:26 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 72 of 211 (633001)
09-11-2011 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2011 9:55 PM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
Hello Catholic Scientist,
I agree that "communicate" would have been a better word, but I do think that is what Spock meant when he used the word 'respond'.
There are whole legions of people who try to interpret what the Star Trek characters mean.
People like these guys...
these guys...
this guy...
and probably this crazy bastard...
My original comment refuting Dawn Bertots claim was a few lines. He provided a couple of lines from a Star Trek episode. I refuted the claim he made based on those few lines. I had no real intention of pursuing this as far as I have. It is quite possible that Spock meant something other than what he said. However, this was not provided in the example. I also have not seen or have forgotten the episode in question. I was provided with a few lines and a claim based upon those few lines. I refuted the example given.
But this would turn Spock into a blundering idiot, which we all know he was not.
script section snipped
The problem is one of communication, which Spock has just learned is not jammed. And Uhura is the one who brought up a 'reponse'.
This is all fair enough. However, it is irrelevant to the discussion. I am refuting the example supplied by DB. It is all together possible that taking into account the rest of the script of prior knowledge of Spock would have an effect on the example. However, none of this information was included in the example. A few lines of text were supplied as an example. It was quite easy to refute the example as supplied. I am sure that there are people out there who do not follow Star Trek and would have supplied the exact same answer as I did. If DB wants to provide an example, he should make sure that the example actually supports his position.
I don't think there's any room for Spock to be making the simple error of failing to consider that the people on the ship could technically be responding even thought they Enterprise isn't receiving communication (say, by shouting their message instead of using the communicator). That would be very un-Spock-like... Doncha think?
Yes, it would be un-Spock-like. This however does not change the example provided by DB or the error in using that example. My partner has never seen a single Star Trek episode or movie (she also has not seen The Sound of Music!?). If she was replying to your message, she would be asking what you are talking about. There is no reason for her to believe that the definition of the word respond should change because a particular fictional character said it. Nor would she expect to have to find the script of the episode to check the context of the example. Id you are supplied with an example, you should be able to examine that example as supplied.
DB provided an example. He should not have provided an example that would require prior knowledge of the character in order for that example to support his position. The words in the example would actually have to change to mean different things in order to support DBs position. It is pretty silly to provide an example, then say that some words in that example change to mean something different to the standard dictionary meaning in a particular context.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2011 9:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2011 7:06 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 74 of 211 (633004)
09-11-2011 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2011 10:26 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot,
This has always been my position and now it seems you are starting to see what I was saying. Whether there was a problem that existed or not, is neither here nor there
I am not starting to see what you are saying. I have said, from the beginning, that your continual requests for alternate words to willing and able have been irrelevant to the way I have refuted your example. I am not starting to see your position at all. You have been rambling on about willing and able in a conversation with yourself when it has never, ever had anything to do with my position. You and I have not, at any stage had a discussion about the problems with the words willing or able. I have not discussed any issues with those two words with you at any pint. You have been discussing it with yourself. I have no position on those two words. I am not starting to see your side of that discussion because I am in no way involved in any discussion with you regarding problems with the words willing or able. At no stage in any future responses will it be necessary for you to discuss any problem you perceive with the defintions of willing or able, or requests for alternate words. As this issue has absolutely nothing to do with my dispute of your example, it has never and will never be an issue we need to discuss.
I am fully aware that the entire paragraph I have just written will not be clear enough for you.
However, if you read my example I am clearly stating what I have maintained all along.
You have not provided two more examples anymore than RAZD has. As I pointed out to you it never mattered whether the 2nd ship was willing or able, that was never the point, so you manufactured a scenario that didnt exist.
The task, in your example was to respond. Let me provide your example again (I believe this may be the forth time). from Message 306
quote:
Here is an example, On the enterprise on one occcasion, Mr Spock stated to the Captain, "Captain there are only two logical possibilites, they are unable to respond, ther are unwilling to respond."
I did not manufacture this scenario. You provided this scenario. This is the entire example you provided. This is your example.
Here are the two alternates I provided way back on [msg=631041]. I have provided these examples on multiple occasions now.
quote:
However, there is a third and forth option not considered by Kirk or Spock. The third option is : They are responding in a manner that the Enterprise cannot understand or detect. The forth option is that the subject of their communication is unaware of the original communication and is not aware it needs to respond to anything.
Further explanation of those two alternates -
quote:
the third alternate : I have recently studied chemical plant communication. This is only a relatively recent discovery. Plants have been communicating with one another (even different species) all this time and we have not known about it. Lets say that we have been communicating with a plant and it has been responding by way of chemical communication in the air. We have not known of this method and we have not known what it meant until very recently.
Example of the forth alternate : if aliens came to Earth in the 1st century AD and blasted communications to us using standard radiowaves, humanity would never have known. They may have said we were unable or unwilling to respond. This is not the case, we would not have known that any communication was even being attempted.
In both of my examples, the 2nd craft was both willing and able to respond. Spock said that the only two options were that the 2nd craft was either unwilling or unable to respond. I have provided two examples where the 2nd craft is both willing and able to respond. Your example is refuted, twice.
nt exist.
response, communication, anbivalence. apathy or programming do not affect the outcome of any response. It will always just be able or unable
That does not make any sense.
Thats impossible, because no example you provided will be anything other than willing or able, or a combination of the two.
I have never had any issue with the words willing or able. I believe that I have told you this enough times now that every time you bring it up I am justified in calling you a fucking moron. You have not stated that you have a learning disbility to this is the only option left.
You did not understand the point of the conversation when you started
You provided an example. I have refuted your example. If your example did not mean what you actually wanted it to mean that is your error, not mine.
You mistook that I meant that Spocks statement meant that they hadnt responded and werent able or willing.
You provided an example. I have refuted your example. If your example did not mean what you actually wanted it to mean that is your error, not mine.
That was never my meaning. My meaning was that regardless of who did what, whenever, however, whereever, those responses would only fall into two categories
You provided an example. I have refuted your example. If your example did not mean what you actually wanted it to mean that is your error, not mine.
You should have paid attention to the part of his statement that said, "There are only two logical possibilites"
I did pay attention. I paid attention enough to realise that there are not only two logical possilities. I have provided another two. Making at least 4 possibilites. You provided an example. I have refuted your example. If your example did not mean what you actually wanted it to mean that is your error, not mine.
he was absolutely correct, because there are no other areas or categories of why they did not respond, even if they did
There are alternatives. I have provided them for you many times now.
In both of my examples, the 2nd craft is both willing and able to respond but Spock receives no communication. This very clearly refutes your example.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2011 10:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2011 1:45 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 75 of 211 (633005)
09-11-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2011 10:39 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
The first part of the statement is what needs to be addressed, because is more important than the second. The second part is relatively unimportant, unless one wishes a seperate conversation
concering, respon and commuincate, etc
Funnily enough. The conversation I have been having this entire time was in relation to respond and communicate.
You may have noticed by the sheer volume of references to the words "respond" and "communicate".
And the large number of times I have said that I am talking about response and communication.
And the times I have supplied you with the definitions of respond and communicate.
And the times that I have told you that I am not talking about willing and able.
All the times when I have directed you to focus on the words respond and communicate.
All the times when I have had to repeat myself over and over again saying that I am talking about response and communication and nothing else.
You know, all of those times (every, single fucking post) when I have said that I am talking about your issues with the words respond and communicate.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2011 10:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2011 2:00 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 78 of 211 (633085)
09-12-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2011 2:00 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Hello dawn Berot,
This will be the last time I pint out the huge obvious error you are making with your example.
Have one of the grammarians here at the site break down Spook's statement and see what the focus of "two logical possibilites " are, Willing and Able, or respond
I can break the sentences down for you (again).
this is your example in full from Message 306
quote:
Here is an example, On the enterprise on one occcasion, Mr Spock stated to the Captain, "Captain there are only two logical possibilites, they are unable to respond, ther are unwilling to respond."
No matter the reason, it will fall sqaurely within those limited possibilites, or it will be a combination of both, but no more. Thats all existence will allow
The two possibilities provided in you example are:
1. They are unable to respond.
2. They are unwilling to respond.
You can tell that those are the two possibilities because Spock says "Captain there are only two logical possibilites", then he follows that by providing two possibilities. Those possibilities again are "they are unable to respond" and "ther are unwilling to respond".
If we look at the two possibilities that Spock provided.
here they are again.
The two possibilities provided in your example are:
1. They are unable to respond.
2. They are unwilling to respond.
I will explain again why these are the two possibilites. You can tell that those are the two possibilities because Spock says "Captain there are only two logical possibilites", then he follows that by providing two possibilities. Those possibilities again are "they are unable to respond, ther are unwilling to respond".
Possibility number 1.
They are unable to respond.
Now, lets try hard to look for the task in this sentence. Where is the doing word? The verb? That is probably going too fast. I will break it down one word at a time.
They - Third person plural personal pronoun. Not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.
Are - Are is a plural, present tense conjugation of the verb be. This is also not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.
Unable - This is an adjective. A describing word. It is describing something. This is not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence. I know you will not accept this. This does not change the fact that unable is not a verb. Regardless of how much you want unable to be a verb, or how many times you say it is a verb, it wont ever be a verb. Accept it.
To - In this sentence, to is an infinitive marker: Used with the base form of a verb to indicate that the verb is in the infinitive, in particular, in this example, expressing purpose or intention. Again, to is not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.
Respond - verb - Doing word. This is the word that indicates the task. Just in case you disagree with that, here is the the definition of verb -
Verb - A word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen.
The subject of the phrase is who or what does the verb. In this case, the subject is 'they'. They are unable to respond.
The verb in this sentence is a plural verb. Respond. (he respondS = singular, they respond = plural) The subject verb agreement is fine.
Unable in this phrase is an adjective describing an ability in a specific past event. Unable is describing ability in the task of responding.
Option one has now been deconstructed in full.
Now onto option two -
They are unwilling to respond.
It is very similar to the first option.
They - Third person plural personal pronoun. Not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.
Are - Are is a plural, present tense conjugation of the verb be. This is also not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.
Unwillimg - This is an adjective. A describing word. It is describing something. This is not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence. I know you will not accept this. This does not change the fact that unable is not a verb. Regardless of how much you want unable to be a verb, or how many times you say it is a verb, it wont ever be a verb. Accept it.
To - In this sentence, to is an infinitive marker: Used with the base form of a verb to indicate that the verb is in the infinitive, in particular, in this example, expressing purpose or intention. Again, to is not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.
Respond - verb - Doing word. This is the word that indicates the task. Just in case you disagree with that, here is the the definition of verb -
Verb - A word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen.
The subject of the phrase is who or what does the verb. In this case, the subject is 'they'. They are unable to respond.
The verb in this sentence is a plural verb. Respond. (he respondS = singular, they respond = plural) The subject verb agreement is fine.
Unwilling in this phrase is an adjective describing desire, eagerness or preparedness in relation to a specific past event. Unwilling is describing desire, eagerness or preparedness in the task of responding.
Option 2 has been deconstructed in full.
I tried to explain many times that these two items are what decide if it will be Willing or Able, there not something seperate, as alternatives to Willing and Able. You seemed to pay no attention
I have deconstructed the sentences in full for you above. The deconstruction of the sentences proves your above comment wrong. Willing and able are adjectives, describing words. They do not decide anything in the sentences you have provided in your example. I know that you will disagree. Unfortunately, the rules of grammar are pretty clear here. You are wrong. accept it.
Now, the point that I have been refuting since the beginning.
Your example again -
quote:
Here is an example, On the enterprise on one occcasion, Mr Spock stated to the Captain, "Captain there are only two logical possibilites, they are unable to respond, ther are unwilling to respond.
Spocks logical possibility one - "they are unable to respond".
Spocks logical possibility two - "they are unwilling to respond"
My logical possibility three - The second craft has responded, but the Enterprise has not detected this response.
My logical possibility three - The second craft is not aware that was hailed in the first place so they send no response. The second ships communication equiptment is fully cabable of responding to the Enterprise. The crew love Spock and would talk to him any chance they got so they are willing.
In my logical possibility three, the second craft is both willing and able to respond. It has completed the task of responding. Proving that it was willing and able. Thus refuting Spock (and your) claim that the only options are unwilling or unable to respond.
In my logical possibility four, the second craft is both willing and able to respond. Thus refuting Spock (and your) claim that the only options are unwilling and unable to respond.
It cant get any simpler than that.
There are only so many times that I will illustrate your mistake.
I have just reached that limit. You are wrong. Accept it.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2011 2:00 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by rueh, posted 09-12-2011 3:48 PM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 80 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2011 5:45 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024