Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 4:26 AM
17 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2619 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 responded

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

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2619 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 yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 63 of 211 (632952)
09-11-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 11:02 PM


Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives - 2nd the other dimensions\words
Hi Dawn Bertot, I'm going to combine this response with one for Message 59

I talk about dimensions as a parallel to maths, where this {Z} dimension needs to be orthogonal to the {X} (able) and {Y} (willing) dimensions: the effect of this hypothetical {Z} on the response needs to be independent of the {X} (able) and {Y} (willing) dimensions\words.

Im very impressed RAZD, but please put this POST in simple language so we can all understand

Thanks. but I'm trying to make it as simple as possible. Let's try some images, rather than a thousand words.

Borrowed from http://etc.usf.edu/...rt/galleries/math/coordinate_grids.php (rather than draw it myself):

quote:

Here you have a 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}, with four quadrants

  1. (+x,+y) in the upper right
  2. (+x,-y) in the lower right
  3. (-x,+y) in the upper left and
  4. (-x,-y) in the lower left

Here we can talk about {X} representing [able]ity, where positive {X} represents able, and negative {X} represents not able ("not" being negative).

And we can talk about {Y} representing [willing]ness, where positive {Y} represents willing, and negative {Y} represents not willing ("not" being negative).

A response is made only if {X} and {Y} are positive. A response is made only if the second ship is [able] to [respond] and [willing] to [respond].

Now we add a new dimension, borrowed from http://forums.runicgames.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7148 (rather than draw it myself)::

quote:

Here we have taken the previous 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}, with four quadrants, and laid it down on a flat surface, with the new hypothetical {Z} dimension projecting in the vertical direction from the plane of the previous 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}.

The previous 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}, with four quadrants, still exists where the value of {Z} is zero:

  1. (+x,+y,0) in the upper right
  2. (+x,-y,0) in the lower right
  3. (-x,+y,0) in the upper left and
  4. (-x,-y,0) in the lower left

It also exists for any value of {Z}. For example if {Z} = 1:

  1. (+x,+y,1) in the upper right
  2. (+x,-y,1) in the lower right
  3. (-x,+y,1) in the upper left and
  4. (-x,-y,1) in the lower left

OR if {Z} = -1:

  1. (+x,+y,-1) in the upper right
  2. (+x,-y,-1) in the lower right
  3. (-x,+y,-1) in the upper left and
  4. (-x,-y,-1) in the lower left

Now we can talk about {X} representing [able]ity, where positive {X} represents able, and negative {X} represents not able ("not" being negative), as before.

And we can talk about {Y} representing [willing]ness, where positive {Y} represents willing, and negative {Y} represents not willing ("not" being negative), as before.

AND, we can consider if there is an hypothetical {Z} representing something else, some other word that also inhibits or allows a response -- [Z]ness, where positive {Z} represents {something else}, and negative {X} represents not {something else} ("not" being negative).

Now we have eight sectors:

  1. (+x,+y,+z) in the top upper right
  2. (+x,-y,+z) in the top lower right
  3. (-x,+y,+z) in the top upper left and
  4. (-x,-y,+z) in the top lower left
    and
  5. (+x,+y,-z) in the bottom upper right
  6. (+x,-y,-z) in the bottom lower right
  7. (-x,+y,-z) in the bottom upper left and
  8. (-x,-y,-z) in the bottom lower left

A response is made only if {X} and {Y} AND {Z} are positive. A response is made only if the second ship is [able] to [respond] and [willing] to [respond] AND the hypothetical {something else} are all positive.

In Message 55 (and other previous messages) I have mentioned sunflowers:

quote:
The sunflower program is independent of whether or not the sunflower is [willing] or not[willing] because they are not able to make subjective choices. Their program has been acquired via trial and error, preserving what works in the offspring of the surviving and breeding members of the ancestral populations, and eliminating what doesn't work from the gene pool by failure to survive or reproduce.

For the sunflowers, {Y} = [willing]ness ≡ 0. Something else is controlling whether the sunflower is making a response or not that is independent of [able]ity to [respond]

Message 59: 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

Again, we look at the sunflower, where we have these possible scenarios:


[willing]ness ≡ 0
[programed] to [respond]
not[programed] to [respond]
[able] to [respond]
[programed] & [able] to [respond]
response made

not[programed] but [able] to [respond]
response not made
not[able] to [respond]
[programed] but not[able] to [respond]
response not made
not[programed] & not[able] to [respond]
response not made

The [program] to [respond] can be lost by genetic defect while the [able]ity to [respond] remains intact.

The [able]ity to [respond] can be lost by genetic defect while the [program] to [respond] remains intact.

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

Let's now talk about equivocation in the meanings of [able] and [willing] and the relation to [respond].

I am either [able] or not[able] to tie my shoes.
I am either [willing] or not[willing] to tie my shoes.

If both are positive then I am [able] and [willing] to tie my shoes.

This does not make me [able] and [willing] to [respond].

You seem to think that you can weasel either [able]ity or [willing]ness into any other element to make your point. This does not work because the issue is {[able]ity to [respond]} and {[willing]ness to [respond]}. Being [able] and [willing] to tie my shoes does not make me [able] and [willing] to [respond].

The programing of the sunflower will either result in a choice to [respond] or a choice to not[respond] and that choice is independent of the [able]ity of the sunflower to [respond], it is dependent on an additional factor: whether the sun is out or not.

The programing of the robot will either result in a choice to [respond] or a choice to not[respond] and that choice is independent of the [able]ity of the robot to [respond], but it is dependent on an additional factor: how the program decides whether to respond or not.

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

I think the word programming will not work either

I think the problem you are having is that these two terms are a part of the fabric of existence. To try and avoid that fact is an exercise in futility

But perhaps I am missing something

The [able]ity to [respond] is independent of the [program]ing to respond. The decision whether or not to [respond] is not determined by the [able]ity to respond, but by the [program]ing regarding whether or not to [respond].

[program]ing is a viable alternative explanation for lack of response from the second ship.

Enjoy.


... actually there are more cases for the sunflower programming issue:

[willing]ness ≡ 0 [programed] & [positive input] [programed] & [negative input] not[programed] to [respond]
[able] to [respond] [programed], [positive input]
& [able] to [respond]
response made

[programed], [negative input]
but [able] to [respond]
response not made

not[programed]
but [able] to [respond]
response not made
not[able] to [respond] [programed], [positive input]
but not[able] to [respond]
response not made
[programed], [negative input]
but not[able] to [respond]
response not made
not[programed]
& not[able] to [respond]
response not made

The sunflower is either [able] or un[able] to respond, depending on its genetics, development, nutrition etc.

The sunflower is either [programmed] or not[programmed] to respond, depending on its genetics, development, nutrition etc.

If [programmed] the sunflower reacts one way (turns) to positive inputs, and a different way (does not turn) to negative inputs, inputs that can vary from minute to minute.

Edited by RAZD, : added at bottom - reference [msg=180]


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 11:02 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2011 3:53 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 64 of 211 (632957)
09-11-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 11:09 PM


Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives
Hi Dawn Bertot,

The logical proof has been presented.

I must have missed it -- can you link to the post or repost it?

Thanks


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 11:09 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 65 of 211 (632962)
09-11-2011 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
09-11-2011 1:11 PM


Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives - 2nd the other dimensions\words
Hi Dawn Bertot, I'm going to combine this response with one for Message 59

I talk about dimensions as a parallel to maths, where this {Z} dimension needs to be orthogonal to the {X} (able) and {Y} (willing) dimensions: the effect of this hypothetical {Z} on the response needs to be independent of the {X} (able) and {Y} (willing) dimensions\words.

Im very impressed RAZD, but please put this POST in simple language so we can all understand

Thanks. but I'm trying to make it as simple as possible. Let's try some images, rather than a thousand words.

Borrowed from http://etc.usf.edu/...rt/galleries/math/coordinate_grids.php (rather than draw it myself):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you have a 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}, with four quadrants

1.(+x,+y) in the upper right

2.(+x,-y) in the lower right

3.(-x,+y) in the upper left and

4.(-x,-y) in the lower left
Here we can talk about {X} representing [able]ity, where positive {X} represents able, and negative {X} represents not able ("not" being negative).

And we can talk about {Y} representing [willing]ness, where positive {Y} represents willing, and negative {Y} represents not willing ("not" being negative).

A response is made only if {X} and {Y} are positive. A response is made only if the second ship is [able] to [respond] and [willing] to [respond].

Now we add a new dimension, borrowed from http://forums.runicgames.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7148 (rather than draw it myself)::

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we have taken the previous 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}, with four quadrants, and laid it down on a flat surface, with the new hypothetical {Z} dimension projecting in the vertical direction from the plane of the previous 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}.

The previous 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}, with four quadrants, still exists where the value of {Z} is zero:

1.(+x,+y,0) in the upper right

2.(+x,-y,0) in the lower right

3.(-x,+y,0) in the upper left and

4.(-x,-y,0) in the lower left
It also exists for any value of {Z}. For example if {Z} = 1:

1.(+x,+y,1) in the upper right

2.(+x,-y,1) in the lower right

3.(-x,+y,1) in the upper left and

4.(-x,-y,1) in the lower left
OR if {Z} = -1:

1.(+x,+y,-1) in the upper right

2.(+x,-y,-1) in the lower right

3.(-x,+y,-1) in the upper left and

4.(-x,-y,-1) in the lower left
Now we can talk about {X} representing [able]ity, where positive {X} represents able, and negative {X} represents not able ("not" being negative), as before.

And we can talk about {Y} representing [willing]ness, where positive {Y} represents willing, and negative {Y} represents not willing ("not" being negative), as before.

AND, we can consider if there is an hypothetical {Z} representing something else, some other word that also inhibits or allows a response -- [Z]ness, where positive {Z} represents {something else}, and negative {X} represents not {something else} ("not" being negative).

Now we have eight sectors:

1.(+x,+y,+z) in the top upper right

2.(+x,-y,+z) in the top lower right

3.(-x,+y,+z) in the top upper left and

4.(-x,-y,+z) in the top lower left
and

5.(+x,+y,-z) in the bottom upper right

6.(+x,-y,-z) in the bottom lower right

7.(-x,+y,-z) in the bottom upper left and

8.(-x,-y,-z) in the bottom lower left
A response is made only if {X} and {Y} AND {Z} are positive. A response is made only if the second ship is [able] to [respond] and [willing] to [respond] AND the hypothetical {something else} are all positive.

In Message 55 (and other previous messages) I have mentioned sunflowers:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sunflower program is independent of whether or not the sunflower is [willing] or not[willing] because they are not able to make subjective choices. Their program has been acquired via trial and error, preserving what works in the offspring of the surviving and breeding members of the ancestral populations, and eliminating what doesn't work from the gene pool by failure to survive or reproduce.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the sunflowers, {Y} = [willing]ness ß 0. Something else is controlling whether the sunflower is making a response or not that is independent of [able]ity to [respond]

Kudos to Percy or what ever admin guy is letting us continue, to some what must be a ridiculous discussion

However I find it very hard to believe that you cannot translate all of this symbolic jargon into simple English, consisting of a few lines of your point

What I am more interested in you doing is translating this symbolic jargon into a simple word or concept that is different than willing or able

Thus far you have tried ambivalent, apathy and programming, all of which have failed because they have nothing drectly to do with willing or able. While the are involved, they dont change the limited possibilites

You seem to think that you can weasel either [able]ity or [willing]ness into any other element to make your point. This does not work because the issue is {[able]ity to [respond]} and {[willing]ness to [respond]}. Being [able] and [willing] to tie my shoes does not make me [able] and [willing] to [respond].

The programing of the sunflower will either result in a choice to [respond] or a choice to not[respond] and that choice is independent of the [able]ity of the sunflower to [respond], it is dependent on an additional factor: whether the sun is out or not

Which means it will be either able or unable to complete its programming, correct. By the sunflower responding, I dont mean it is choosing to, I simply mean it will or will not be Able to perform its function

Whatever it does when it is finished doing it, will make it able or unable to complete its programming. So stick that where the sun dont shine, ha ha, just kidding

Re-read your above comment and see if it seems as silly to you, as you as it does to me

Response has nothing to do with the only logical possibilites available for response to fall into

Dont you find it just a little coincidental that in your above comments you can find nothing but able and willing. When you you decide (response) to tie your shoes, you will only be able or unable, willing or able, etc

The programing of the robot will either result in a choice to [respond] or a choice to not[respond] and that choice is independent of the [able]ity of the robot to [respond], but it is dependent on an additional factor: how the program decides whether to respond or not.

It does not matter whether the choice is independant of the mechanism, it will only be able or unable to accomplish its programming

but it is dependent on an additional factor: how the program decides whether to respond or not.

Ok provide the additional term that will not mean able or unable

Outside circumstnaces have nothing to do with the limitations of able and unable. Thats already set by reality, you cant change it.

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 1:11 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 1:50 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 66 of 211 (632966)
09-11-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Butterflytyrant
09-11-2011 3:21 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
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.

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

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 3:21 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 6:38 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2619 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 responded

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

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 68 of 211 (632995)
09-11-2011 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
09-07-2011 7:47 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
To my mind, this comes down to how the terms are defined. Here you are suggesting that "able to respond" includes (1) being able to communicate rather than just being able to make a response of some kind that may or may not be detected, and (2) being able to reach the 'Talk' button etc so that the reply can be delivered. That's pretty broad for a definition.

I'm fine with the intended definition being considered "broad".

Well, isn't that one of the questions? Was (the TV character\script) Spock right? Are TV writers known for the validity of their logic?

I could accept that it was poor word choice by the writers, but I'm pretty sure that Spock wouldn't have made such an amateur mistake. Because of that, and judging from the script, I think Spock's claim used the broader defintion.

We'll have to see what Dawn Bertot has to say about the word definitions once we establish that the op does accurately portray his position.

I'd rather speculate about Spock, so I'll leave you to that.


From Message 39:

quote:
When it comes to "willing" it may be possible to be ambivalent (a null position), answering sometimes and other times not, as more of a whim than a willingness, perhaps based on the toss of a coin.



willing
ambivalent
not[willing]
able
willing & able
reply made

ambivalent & able
reply made sometimes\occasionally
not[willing] but able
reply not made
not[able]
willing but not[able]
reply not made
ambivalent but not[able]
reply not made
not[willing] & not[able]
reply not made

Another word that could be used in place of ambivalent is apathetic, but in either case we have a situation where they just don't care either way, and may decide on the whim of the moment or some external factor whether or not to respond.

I could see it either way... where willingness and ambivalence are either mutually exclusive or not. It depends on how you want to look at it.

But I do think that the way Spock was talking, he would consider ambivalence to be unwillingness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2011 7:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 10:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 69 of 211 (632996)
09-11-2011 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Butterflytyrant
09-07-2011 10:31 PM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
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 agree that "communicate" would have been a better word, but I do think that is what Spock meant when he used the word 'respond'.

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.

But this would turn Spock into a blundering idiot, which we all know he was not.

Consider this bolded part, from the movie script:

quote:
59 INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE 59

Featuring Spock and Uhura, as she keeps trying --

UHURA
... Again, this is Enterprise calling
Space Lab Regula I. Come in, please.
Dr. Marcus. Please respond, please
-- it's no use; no response from
Regula I.

SPOCK
But no longer jammed?

UHURA
No, sir. No nothing.

Spock considers, moves to Kirk.

SPOCK
There are two possibilities, sir
they are unwilling to respond, they
are unable to respond.


The problem is one of communication, which Spock has just learned is not jammed. And Uhura is the one who brought up a 'reponse'.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-07-2011 10:31 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 10:33 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 70 of 211 (632999)
09-11-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Butterflytyrant
09-11-2011 6:38 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
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.

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

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.

response, communication, anbivalence. apathy or programming do not affect the outcome of any response. It will always just be able or unable

There are more than the two options that Spock put forward.

Thats impossible, because no example you provided will be anything other than willing or able, or a combination of the two.

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.

You did not understand the point of the conversation when you started

You mistook that I meant that Spocks statement meant that they hadnt responded and werent able or willing.

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 should have paid attention to the part of his statement that said, "There are only two logical possibilites" Thats the important part, not "They are unwilling to respond, they are unable to respond". The first part of his comment directs the second part of his comment

The logical possibilites is the most important part

he was absolutely correct, because there are no other areas or categories of why they did not respond, even if they did

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 6:38 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 11:02 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 71 of 211 (633000)
09-11-2011 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2011 9:54 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Hi Catholic Scientist,

Thanks for the script clip, it helps to know the specific context.

But I do think that the way Spock was talking, he would consider ambivalence to be unwillingness.

Curiously, Dawn Bertot said that it made them unable.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2011 9:54 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2011 10:39 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2011 7:00 PM RAZD has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2619 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 responded

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

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 73 of 211 (633002)
09-11-2011 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
09-11-2011 10:30 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
ously, Dawn Bertot said that it made them unable.

At any rate it is one of the two, unwillingness will probably translate into unwilling

Spocks point of view is unimportant, whether they responded or not is unimportant

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

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 10:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 11:08 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 1:12 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2619 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 responded

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

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2619 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 responded

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

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019