Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 106 of 211 (633357)
09-13-2011 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Panda
09-13-2011 6:13 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Didn't you see the bits where I said "Ha Ha, just kidding"?
I was just a friendly jibe between friends.
Wow - you need to get a sense of humour you retard - Ha Ha, just kidding.
I thought that was how it worked:
That is how it works, good job, very funny.
Dawn Bertot writes:
those Admin "freaks" (just kidding fellas)
So stick that where the sun dont shine, ha ha, just kidding
It doesnt surprise your source messed this up, since most everything else you teaches is goofy as well. Ha Ha Im just kidding on that remark
Jerk, Just kidding holmes.
the grumpy-ole, IAJ, just kidding
nerdarama, just kidding of course
Why you worthless sack of cr...... No Im just kidding
Ive tried my best to get along with that evil, no good for nothing. No Im just kidding, but she is hateful
its just that your a knothead, IM JUST KIDDING.
even Peg and their little group, ha ha (just kidding Peg)
Just kidding about the nerd part.
Look out Gulf War veterans we have a real hero on our hands here fellas [sarcasm] Just kidding CaveDiver
Then ofcourse there is "Yogart", the "everlasting know it all", or Cavediver, which ever is easier, ha ha. Just kidding CD, dont have a anurism.
What if I refered to you as "Euro-Trash", of course I am just kidding here Homie.
Remember when i discussed earlier your reasoning abilities not being that polished, Well? Just kidding of course.
You will get thehang of this debating thing, just kidding dude.
Sounds like this boy has a problem with queermo sexuals, yeah dont we all at some point especially that 'Peter Pan' Rrhain, Im just kidding
one of those fellows that ran around with a rock tied on the end of a stick that looked much like yourself, no doubt. Ha Ha just kidding
you grouchy ole bag of crap. just kidding
Wow youve been a busy little Peckerwood.
Now if you would spend as much time in forming actual arguments, you might come off as an adequate debater.
I guess from your past performances, your talents (if I may use that term), lie else where
Such is life.
I suppose you gave up on trying to show there were actually two instead of four concepts, right
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 6:13 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 6:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 107 of 211 (633359)
09-13-2011 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Panda
09-13-2011 6:13 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:
those Admin "freaks" (just kidding fellas)
So stick that where the sun dont shine, ha ha, just kidding
It doesnt surprise your source messed this up, since most everything else you teaches is goofy as well. Ha Ha Im just kidding on that remark
Jerk, Just kidding holmes.
the grumpy-ole, IAJ, just kidding
nerdarama, just kidding of course
Why you worthless sack of cr...... No Im just kidding
Ive tried my best to get along with that evil, no good for nothing. No Im just kidding, but she is hateful
its just that your a knothead, IM JUST KIDDING.
even Peg and their little group, ha ha (just kidding Peg)
Just kidding about the nerd part.
Look out Gulf War veterans we have a real hero on our hands here fellas [sarcasm] Just kidding CaveDiver
Then ofcourse there is "Yogart", the "everlasting know it all", or Cavediver, which ever is easier, ha ha. Just kidding CD, dont have a anurism.
What if I refered to you as "Euro-Trash", of course I am just kidding here Homie.
Remember when i discussed earlier your reasoning abilities not being that polished, Well? Just kidding of course.
You will get thehang of this debating thing, just kidding dude.
Sounds like this boy has a problem with queermo sexuals, yeah dont we all at some point especially that 'Peter Pan' Rrhain, Im just kidding
one of those fellows that ran around with a rock tied on the end of a stick that looked much like yourself, no doubt. Ha Ha just kidding
you grouchy ole bag of crap. just kidding
Any chance you can provde a list on anyone else, or are you just dead set on personal revenge on me
While I am just kidding in my responses, Im sure there are others much more verbal and abusive and they mean it, ummmm, like yourself
Any chance you would produce an extensive list of your sarcasms and insults
lets see that list
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 6:13 PM Panda has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 108 of 211 (633361)
09-13-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 6:21 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Wow youve been a busy little Peckerwood.
Not that busy: it only took 5 minutes to find a page of your insults.
You are frequently rude and insulting.
I think you use it to distract people from your ignorance - Ha Ha, just kidding.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Wow youve been a busy little Peckerwood.
Now if you would spend as much time in forming actual arguments, you might come off as an adequate debater.
I guess from your past performances, your talents (if I may use that term), lie else where
Thanks for those.
I'll add them to the list.
I am sure your god is proud of you - Ha Ha, just kidding.
I am certain he isn't.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:34 PM Panda has replied

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


Message 109 of 211 (633363)
09-13-2011 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Panda
09-13-2011 6:29 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Thanks for those.
I'll add them to the list.
I am sure your god is proud of you - Ha Ha, just kidding.
I am certain he isn't.
If you are any kind of man at all (if you are male), lets see the list of your insults, jibes and sarcasm
Are you man enough to produce that list, I think you are a coward and will not
Lets see if you are a man or atleast consistant
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 6:29 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 6:51 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 113 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 8:13 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 110 of 211 (633369)
09-13-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 6:34 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:
lets see the list of your insults, jibes and sarcasm
Just to be clear: that was not a list of all your insults, jibes and sarcasm.
That was a tiny sub-set of your insults, jibes and sarcasm.
I only listed the insults that had the word 'kidding' in them.
There is not enough time in the day to produce a complete list of your insults.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:34 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 7:31 PM Panda has not replied

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


Message 111 of 211 (633378)
09-13-2011 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Panda
09-13-2011 6:51 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Just to be clear: that was not a list of all your insults, jibes and sarcasm.
That was a tiny sub-set of your insults, jibes and sarcasm.
I only listed the insults that had the word 'kidding' in them.
There is not enough time in the day to produce a complete list of your insults.
I was right, your a coward
The next time you are at the shops, get a price on a backbone, if there reasonable
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 6:51 PM Panda has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 112 of 211 (633381)
09-13-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
09-13-2011 5:08 PM


Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
Hi Catholic Scientist
Au contraire, I am using a different definition:
From your online dictionary:
In other words you are not using the definitions agreed to by others, including Dawn Bertot, to apply lesser common usage
quote:
willing
—adjective
3. done, given, borne, used, etc., with cheerful readiness.
Yeah, right - these make sense:
  1. I am done to go to work
  2. I am given to go to work
  3. I am borne to go to work
  4. I am used to go to work
  5. I am with cheerful readiness to go to work
the jilted syntax should be the give away here that these definitions are not replacements for [willing] in these sentences.
vs
quote:
—adjective
1. disposed or consenting; inclined: willing to go along.
  1. I am disposed to go to work
  2. I am consenting to go to work
  3. I am inclined to go to work
and
quote:
2. cheerfully consenting or ready: a willing worker.
  1. I am cheerfuly consenting to go to work
  2. I am ready to go to work
And further down:
Oh good, let's try to substitute a different word, a verb instead of an adjective. Why don't you go down to the legal definition?
quote:
1 : to order or direct by will < will ed that his money be given to charity>
2 : to dispose of by will < will ed the house to their children>
This is called equivocation: you need to use the same meaning that fits with the usage and not a meaning that doesn't, you need to consistently use the same meaning when talking about responding.
So yeah, your definition is more about wanting to do it...
Which is what the definitions that make sense in the phrase in question mean.
They are willing to respond:
  1. They are disposed to respond
  2. They are consenting to respond
  3. They are inclined to respond
  1. They are cheerfuly consenting to respond
  2. They are ready to respond
which all make sense
vs your definition
  1. They are done to respond
  2. They are borne to respond
  3. They are used to respond
    which don't make much sense to me, and
  4. They are given to respond
  5. They are with cheerful readiness to respond
which are like the meanings in definitions 1 and 2 above.
So I don't see any of the definition saying that the completion of a task as part of the definition.
You may still have the desire to repond, but you have not brought it about. In the sense of your desire, you are willing to respond, but in the sense bringing it about, you were unwilling.
And, fortunately (for me), the meaning of the word [willing] that makes sense in the phrase includes these meanings
disposed, consenting, inclined, ready, even given,
but does not (imho) include these meanings
done, borne, used
Getting it done does not belong in [willing]ness.
My definition is about getting it done. If you don't get it done, and you were able, then you were unwilling.
This is called begging the question: you assume that [able]ity and [willing]ness are the only options, so if you can't shoe-horn a different possibility into one, then it must come under the other.
Logic doesn't work that way.
But that would mean the the Enterpirse had received the response, which they did not.
And unwilling (in the sense of bringing it about) to respond.
No, it means they were neither [willing] nor [unwilling], that they were ambivalent, conflicted, and could not decide in the time taken.
No, Spock was talking about them getting their reponse to the Enterprise. He wasn't considering that maybe they were just stuck in their ship shouting really loudly in an attempt to "respond".
Poppycock. The word used was [respond] not [communicate], and if you are going to argue about the character of Spock as indicating meaning, then I suggest to you that Spock would not make an error in the choice of the words used.
It doesn't matter what said task is, if you didn't get it done then you couldn't or you wouldn't... you are unable or unwilling.
If you are going to untether [able] and [willing] from [respond] then in all cases they were both [able] and [willing] to do a number of tasks (breath, eat, touch, etc), and the concept of them being [unable] or [unwilling] becomes absolutely meaningless.
The words are adjectives, not verbs, and adjectives don't DO things, verbs are the action elements ... [respond] is the action in this case, it is what gets done or not done.
Me, and Spock, are/were not using the word "willing" to mean a desire to accomplish a task, its being used to mean the bringing about of an accomplishment of a task.
Sorry to break it to you, but Spock is a fictional character. The actor, Leonard NImoy is quite a different character (and quite nice when I met him at one of those "dork" conventions ... ), as he sings, dances and (gasp) cries.
... are/were not using the word "willing" to mean a desire to accomplish a task, its being used to mean the bringing about of an accomplishment of a task.
Then you are misusing it to mean things that are not in the definitions.
Even if the task had been [communication] instead of [willing], the term [willing] would still not mean accomplishing the task, but disposed, consenting, inclined, ready, even given, to communicate.
You're confusing (imho) the part of the issue that belongs under [able]ity with those that belong under [willing]ness:
From Message 26:
quote:
The dictionaries defines "able" to be:
Able Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
adjective
1. having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications; qualified: able to lift a two-hundred-pound weight; able to write music; able to travel widely; able to vote.
and
- adj
1. ( postpositive ) having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity, etc, to do something: able to swim
and
Function: adjective
1 : possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective < able to perform under the contract>

Having the necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications to respond,
But they still do not depend on actually getting the task done, they just mean you have the ability to get the task done.
You need to think of it as a number of switches that all need to be on for the lights to come on. The question is how many switches are involved.
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 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2011 5:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-14-2011 11:06 AM RAZD has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 113 of 211 (633383)
09-13-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 6:34 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:
If you are any kind of man at all (if you are male), lets see the list of your insults, jibes and sarcasm
Ok.
Here it is:
Dawn Bertot writes:
I suppose the title of your thread and the irorny of your continual dwelling on the God question in this website and your life, is lost on a moron like yourself
If indeed God is a waste of time and space, only a ignorant moron would spend so much time talking about him.
So which are you a coward or a moron, moron?
Its not about me Moron.
No moron, I said he was a very real probabilty using any real rule of evidence, having never witnessing him
Only a tyrant and an arrogant moron would claim to have the only definition of real science, so why dont you stay out of thier buisness
Only a moron or someone void of any reasoning ability would make such an ignorant comment. which one are you?
Only a moron would suggest that Dawn needs to explain why order cannot arise through unintelligent processess.
there are no philosophical reasons, didnt you see stripes, moron
Now if you will QUIT PLAYING THE simplistic moron role and point out in a logical form why this is not valid
While all the time, moronically claiming that there is no need to know if matter is eternal to demonstrate the factual nature of evolution
No moron you cannot explain how the things of existence are here to begin with.
Just switch gears when you are talking to Jaywill and the myself, moron.
Hey wait a minute, moron I havent been in the mix for a day or so now
I guess just being British initially entitles you to be an arrogant pompous moron
Im sorry, did I fail to say before your an unobjective moron, if I did, let me say, your an unobjective moron.
Again - not a complete list.
Just a selection of insults using the word moron.
Happy now?
(If you aren't happy - I will gladly post more of your insults. There are so many!)
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:34 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 11:04 PM Panda has replied

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


Message 114 of 211 (633406)
09-13-2011 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Panda
09-13-2011 8:13 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Ok.
Here it is:
Dawn Bertot writes:
I suppose the title of your thread and the irorny of your continual dwelling on the God question in this website and your life, is lost on a moron like yourself
If indeed God is a waste of time and space, only a ignorant moron would spend so much time talking about him.
So which are you a coward or a moron, moron?
Its not about me Moron.
No moron, I said he was a very real probabilty using any real rule of evidence, having never witnessing him
Only a tyrant and an arrogant moron would claim to have the only definition of real science, so why dont you stay out of thier buisness
Only a moron or someone void of any reasoning ability would make such an ignorant comment. which one are you?
Only a moron would suggest that Dawn needs to explain why order cannot arise through unintelligent processess.
there are no philosophical reasons, didnt you see stripes, moron
Now if you will QUIT PLAYING THE simplistic moron role and point out in a logical form why this is not valid
While all the time, moronically claiming that there is no need to know if matter is eternal to demonstrate the factual nature of evolution
No moron you cannot explain how the things of existence are here to begin with.
Just switch gears when you are talking to Jaywill and the myself, moron.
Hey wait a minute, moron I havent been in the mix for a day or so now
I guess just being British initially entitles you to be an arrogant pompous moron
Im sorry, did I fail to say before your an unobjective moron, if I did, let me say, your an unobjective moron.
Again - not a complete list.
Just a selection of insults using the word moron.
Happy now?
(If you aren't happy - I will gladly post more of your insults. There are so many!)
Wow your not only a coward, your unethical to boot.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 8:13 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 11:23 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


(1)
Message 115 of 211 (633409)
09-13-2011 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
09-13-2011 2:50 PM


Re: No sniping please
[qs]Everyone,
Let's cut out the personal attacks. They detract from the arguments and only encourage further [i]ad hominum[/u]s.
I continue to mark posts [cheer] if they address the topic in good debate manner, and [jeer] if they contain any attacks on others, whether they originate in the post or are in reply to attacks in other posts.\[/qs\]
I agree. whoo wee
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 93 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 2:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 116 of 211 (633411)
09-13-2011 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 11:04 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Wow your not only a coward, your unethical to boot.
You want me to post more of your insults? Really??
Aren't you ashamed of your past behaviour?
If you ask nicely I'll post another list tomorrow.
Tomorrow's word will be 'coward' - I bet there are dozens of your insults that contain that word!
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 11:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 117 of 211 (633416)
09-13-2011 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
09-13-2011 12:01 PM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
Hello Catholic Scientist,
I know, and you're keeping it up despite my attempt to move the discussion forward.
I dont disagree with the point that DB was making. I am not sure what will be achieved by moving the discussion forward. I agree with DBs point. My only objective was to point out that the example he used does not actually support his point.
What are we going to discuss if I have never had any problem with the point that DB was making?
I agree with the point, the example does not support the point. Whats to discuss?
And in light of the additional context I provided, don't you think that Spock use of the word 'reposnse' implied a meaning that is closer to "communicate" in that it assumes the responder's capability of getting the message to the Enterpirse because they weren't jammed?
The original example that was provided did not include additional context. Also, background knowledge of a character from a fictional TV show should not be pivotal in understanding an example. From the sentences provided in the example, there is no reason to assume that Spock actually meant or implied communicate when he said response. The assumption I made is that DB wants the example he has used to support his point. No context was supplied with the example. An example was given that failed to support DB's point.
From the example given by DB, why would you assume that Spock actually meant communicate, when he said response? Would it not make sense to assume that he meant to use the word he used? Why, from the example provided by BT would you assume the capability of the responder? Adding assumptions to an example only opens the example up to further error. If you just accept the example as supplied, then it is flawed.
I replied to that and then you posted a bunch of pictures of dorks...
I was illustrating that many people can interpret Star Trek in different ways depending on their knowledge of Star Trek. I tried to find pictures of the people most likely to have an intimate knowledge of Star Trek. Star Trek 'professionals' if you will.
Yeah, I get that. But you seem like you still have some disagreement with my position.
I dont think we disagree on the point that DB was actually making. If your position is the same as hers, then we have no disagreement. I am interested in RAZD's posts because they may disagree with it though. The only disagreement I have ever had is with the example. The use of the word respond instead of the word communicate does not support his example. Thats it, it is the only problem I have put forward.
A simple "No." would have sufficed.
I apologise for the overkill. I have been dealing with the same statement, repeatedly with DB for ages now. Regardless of the amount of times I repeat the exact same thing, he just keeps going back to it.
Its the topic of the thread, I've taken a position against the OP, you seem to be disgreeing with me.
The discussion started on another thread. I was one half of the discussion. I only involved myself in this thread to distance myself from the idea that I had a problem with the words willing and able and to repeat that the only issue I ever had was with the use of response in the example provided by DB. I dont really have a position for or against the OP. I disagree with DBs example for a different reason to RAZD (potentially anyway, he has not yet finished).
Well no, you wouldn't have caught the bus. If you would have, then you'd be on it, but you're not. I agree that you were capable, but you lacked the will to get on it and that's why you're not. You were unwilling.
This is the grey area. It depends on time. At the time that the bus was arriving, I would have been able to catch the bus. I could have caught the bus. At the time, I would have caught the bus if I was aware that I was required to. At the time I was willing. I was prepared or ready to act gladly. I had no reason to act but that does not mean I was unwilling to act.
Willing :
1. Disposed or inclined; prepared: I am willing to overlook your mistakes.
2. Acting or ready to act gladly; eagerly compliant:
See what I mean?
Yes, I do see what you mean. I agree with your position because I understand what you are getting at. I do think that a clearer example could be used. Wouldnt and couldnt are problemematic. I would have caught the bus. I could have caught the bus. I did not catch the bus. But that does not mean I would not or could not at the time.
The example first proposed by DB with the word respond changed to communicate is very specific and will illustrate your point.

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 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2011 12:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-14-2011 11:22 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 211 (633417)
09-13-2011 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 5:20 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Hi Dawn Bertot,
Here is my simplified graphic, let's see if this helps:
Notes:
  1. If the ship is a high security research vessel that requires proper security codes and procedures to be met before communication is permitted between the crew and any external source, then the ship could have blocked the incoming transmission from the crew.
  2. This is the original "unable to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unable, this is where it shows up.
  3. This is the original "unwilling to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unwilling, this is where it shows up.
  4. This is the issue of time, both the time alloted by the "Spock" character before he reaches his conclusions, AND the time taken by the crew of the second vessel to respond, whether the time taken is due to apathy\ambivalence in making a decision or whether they are busy on something they feel is necessary for their survival and that has a higher priority than making a response at that time. Making a response could be next on their list of prioritized tasks that they are able and willing to tackle in the time they have.
  5. This is the "sunflower" issue, whether or not there is a program that decides whether or not the response is allowed (ie sent - see note 1), irrespective of the ableness and willingness of the crew to make a response.
  6. This is the issue built into the programing: if the proper input is received communication to and from the vessel is allowed, however if the proper input is not received communication is blocked. Note that this is dependent on the Enterprise knowing and using the proper procedures and not on the ableness or willingness of the crew. The crew can be fully cognizant of the security requirements, completely able to respond if they are met and fully willing to respond if they are met.
  7. This is NOT part of the response from the second vessel, but it IS part of the issue of why the Enterprise has not detected a response from the vessel.
Note in particular that all the items that are NOT in the control of the crew do NOT affect their ableness or willingness to respond. Remember that the original comment by the "Spock" character was that not response was detected because of either one of two reasons:
  1. the CREW was unable to respond
    OR
  2. the Crew was unwilling to respond.]
As we can easily see from this flow chart there are several other possibilities that were not considered.
QED
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 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 5:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2011 1:00 AM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 119 of 211 (633421)
09-14-2011 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
09-13-2011 1:50 PM


Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives - 2nd the other dimensions\words
This can be tested by taking a sunflower inside and seeing if it responds when it is deprived of external input -- sunlight -- and then turning on artificial lights that match sunlight and seeing if it responds. When it does respond to the artificial light then we can be sure that it was able to respond before and that the lack of stimulus is what prevented the response.
Im sorry RAZD, I am still not seeing anything but able and unable. Take for granted the last part of your statement here. "We can be sure that it was ABLE to respond before and the LACK of stimulus (unable) is what prevented it from responding."
response is not the point, it was unable or able, before or after, in either part of your scenario
Am I missing something.?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 1:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 9:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


(1)
Message 120 of 211 (633425)
09-14-2011 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
09-13-2011 11:45 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Note in particular that all the items that are NOT in the control of the crew do NOT affect their ableness or willingness to respond. Remember that the original comment by the "Spock" character was that not response was detected because of either one of two reasons:
the CREW was unable to respond
OR
the Crew was unwilling to respond.
As we can easily see from this flow chart there are several other possibilities that were not considered.
Please tell me if I am missing something and I thought you were the only one that understood from the opposition, but it appears you have missed the point as well
Im not loojing for options for response, but would any actions by either side be characterized by something different than Willing or Able
Where or what on your chart am I missing something
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 11:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 9:44 PM Dawn Bertot 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