|
Author
|
Topic: Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
The flow chart
Hi again Dawn Bertot,
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 Again, as I said in Message 125 you cannot unlink the adjectives from the verbs:
quote:
This is where it gets amusing for me.
response is not the point, ... Response is inextricably part of the issue, failure to include it makes this meaningless --- here's why: The crew of the second ship were able to tie their shoes
The crew of the second ship were willing to tie their shoes
They are therefore both able and willing -- according to your position that response is not the point
So why did the Enterprise not receive a response? By unlinking the adjectives from the verb you make them tautological: You can always find something where the crew is able
You can always find something where the crew is willing
You can always find something where the crew is UNable
You can always find something where the crew is UNwilling So you can cherry pick which "somethings" you want to get whatever result you want. That's dishonest.
Thus the [able]ness, [willing]ness and any other modifier used MUST relate to and be measured against an action if they determine whether or not that action takes place. Now look at the flow chart again. You have an opening initial condition at the top, and an expected action at the bottom. The flow chart takes you down through a number of tests to see if the action will be completed, and the conditions that apply if the action is not completed (from Message 118):
quote:
Here is my simplified graphic, let's see if this helps:
Notes:
- 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.
- This is the original "unable to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unable, this is where it shows up.
- This is the original "unwilling to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unwilling, this is where it shows up.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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. QED
In this instance the action is [response] and the various test boxes determine whether or not the action is completed. One of these test boxes involves [able]ness. One of these boxes involves [willing]ness. The other 5 do not. The first 6 test boxes determine whether the action is completed or not, while the last one determines whether or not it is known that the action was completed or not in the time alloted.
Where or what on your chart am I missing something That there are other factors that can affect whether or not the action is completed, not just [able]ness and [willing]ness. Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : correct link to flow chart
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 127 of 211 (633591)
09-14-2011 10:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by rueh
09-14-2011 8:31 AM
|
|
chance and necessity
Hi again rueh,
Ok it is a zero position. I think that only remains true if two things apply. One, that your ambivalence remains so pervasive as to never make a choice. If your decision is based on a coin toss than you are still making a choice based on those results. Either willing or not willing. Two, that the result of no action does not have the same consequences or appearance as not willing to act. If you are so conflicted as to not respond (since a conflict between willing and unwilling leads to a non response) than in my book that is the same as not willing to respond. You make a choice but the choice is randomly selected -- you have no control over which side the coin lands on. You are confusing willing to follow the coin toss with willing to respond: willing to follow the coin toss does not mean that you respond. If you flip tails and don't respond you are willing to follow the coin toss but not willing to respond. If you flip heads and respond you are willing to follow the coin toss and willing to respond. Because you can end up either responding or not responding you can't say it is because you are willing to respond or unwilling to respond.
I don't see this as being the same state of being as either willing or able. These are reasons why you are either willing or not willing. Yes, they involve the necessities of the situation. If the result is essentially the same whether a response is made or not, then a response is unnecessary. If the crew of the second ship can't survive until the Enterprise beams over to the ship, then making a response is irrelevant to the crew, and therefore unnecessary. Thus immediate survival is more necessary than response, so until immediate survival is achieved it is counterproductive to respond, once survival is achieved it is productive to respond -- therefore it is necessary to delay the response until survival is (and other necessary higher priority tasks are) completed.
| Necessary
| Willing
| Unwilling
| | Able
| Necessary, Able and Willing
| Necessary, Able and Unwilling
| | Unable
| Necessary, Unable and Willing
| Necessary, Unable and Unwilling |
AND
| Unnecessary
| Willing
| Unwilling
| | Able
| Unnecessary, Able and Willing
| Unnecessary, Able and Unwilling
| | Unable
| Unnecessary, Unable and Willing
| Unnecessary, Unable and Unwilling |
Now if it is necessary, and you are willing and able, then the action will be undertaken (ie response). If it is unnecessary, but you are willing and able, then the action may be taken if there are no necessary actions that need to be taken first, or it may be delayed until after more necessary actions are taken. If I am willing to respond to your post, and able to respond to your post, but don't perceive it as necessary, then I may delay that response for a day while I complete some other tasks that I view as more important (necessary) to my long term survival, ... however that delay does not mean that I am either UNable or UNwilling to reply. Consider this diagram that I developed for a different thread:
question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
| |
yes no
| |
decide based is a
on empirical decision
valid evidence necessary?
(A) / \
yes no ... but ...
/ | |
decide why make a
based on decide decision
inadequate at this anyway
evidence time? based on
=guess =wait =opinion
(B) (C) (D) |
- You may have sufficient information to decide to take action (A).
- You may have insufficient information to decide to take action, but it may be necessary to take action (B).
- You may have insufficient information to decide to take action, and it may be unnecessary to take action (C). If you are [able] and [willing] to take action (D), you may chose to take action, but the action may or may not be taken delayed due to various other necessities.
Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by rueh, posted 09-14-2011 8:31 AM | | rueh has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 130 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 8:18 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
different definitions = different arguments rather than agreement
Hi Catholic Scientist Just to be clear:
We're using different definitions for the root "will". On one end its about accomplishing the task, and on the other its about the desire to do something. This means you are not talking about the same thing. Enjoy.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
specific case or general case - that is the question
Hi Catholic Scientist, thanks
Yes, I'm pretty sure... I made it clear in my first post in this thread that I was typing about what Spock said... whatever misconstructions you have with DB don't matter to me... but I do believe I'm on topic. I haven't said you are off topic, I've said that your definition begs the question and creates a tautology.
If you use the root "will" as in 'desire', then that opens up more possibilities, but if you use it like Spock did, then he is correct that those are the only two possibilities. I don't agree with your interpretation of what Spock's usage was, but that is not the issue. In addition to using a different definition, you are also arguing from a specific case with preceding conditions that affect the issue - however the case Dawn Bertot is making is that the "Spock dilemma" is a general case, independent of the Star Trek episode, and where Dawn Bertot accepts the definitions I am using. It is possible to have specific cases where the two options, that does not show that it applies in a general case As a general case it needs to be claimed to apply to all other scenarios as the only options, with my posted definitions, and is falsified by have any specific case where additional issues impact the results. My argument shows that it does not meet this standard for a general case with my posted definitions. Enjoy.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-15-2011 11:47 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 136 of 211 (633664)
09-15-2011 11:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by rueh
09-15-2011 8:18 AM
|
|
Re: chance and necessity
Hi rueh
No I don't believe I am confusing the two. So you agree that being too conflicted - unwilling - to decide is not the same as willing to respond? Do you also agree that being too conflicted - unwilling - to decide is not the same as unwilling to respond?
| Possibilities
| Willing
to decide
| Unwilling
to decide
| | Willing to respond
| Willing to decide
& Willing to respond
| Unwilling to decide
& Willing to respond
| | Unwilling to respond
| Willing to decide
& Unwilling to respond
| Unwilling to decide
& Unwilling to respond |
I believe it does make you unwilling, at least temporarily. You are weighing the information and determining that a response is not needed as this point so you are unwilling to respond, at this point in time. It makes you willing to respond if there is time. It is the other time constraint priorities that block the response NOT the [able]ness and [willing]ness.
Or the situation could need your immediate attention in which case you are unable to respond at this point. The is called affirming the consequent -- assuming it must be one or the other rather than some additional alternative. You are still cap[able] of responding - you have the necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications, yes? Ability to do an action is not lost by not doing the action. I don't like to ride my bike in the rain, that does not mean that I am not able to ride my bike in the rain, or that I would not ride my bike in the rain if it were a high priority task (emergency), or that I will not ride my bike as soon as the rain stops. In the next month I plan to ride my bike. Prediction: by the end of the month I will have ridden my bike, even if there are days filled with rain (which is also predicted). The conditions affect when, not whether, I will ride my bike. My ability to ride my bike is unaffected.
If we consider your diagram than I believe that the outcomes can be summed up as follows. A= Willing to decide based on empirical evidence B= Willing to decide based on inadequate evidence C= Unwilling to decide at this point D= Willing to make a decision based on opinion anyway. I am undecided\conflicted at this time whether to walk or run -- Does that make me willing to walk? Does it make me unwilling to walk? does that make me willing to run? Does it make me unwilling to run? Does it make me unwilling or willing to move? Does it affect my [able]ness to run or to walk? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : fixed table per Message 144
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 8:18 AM | | rueh has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 144 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 4:50 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 138 of 211 (633668)
09-15-2011 12:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 131 by Panda
09-15-2011 8:27 AM
|
|
Re: chance and necessity
Hi Panda,
I think that RAZD's example involving the flower was better, because there you have a response which is without a choice. Yes, it is a programed automatic response to stimulii.
Maybe the 3rd option from 'Willing' and 'Unwilling' is 'Mindless Compulsion'? Wouldn't that be in place of [willing]ness? Under [compulsive behavior] there is no willing and there is no unwilling, as the compulsive\programed response over-rides the [willing]ness. Enjoy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 8:27 AM | | Panda has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 139 of 211 (633670)
09-15-2011 12:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 137 by rueh
09-15-2011 12:03 PM
|
|
cannot be made unable
Hi again rueh, You are confusing the adjective with the task action
They may have a compulsion to not respond but that makes them unable. Since it would be an inability to perform an act. No, it blocks the action from occurring. It doesn't take away the ability. A deer is able to run, but it freezes (compulsion) when caught in the headlights, and when the deer overrides the compulsive freezing it is able to run. Are they willing to run or unwilling to run?
Message 26: disposed or consenting; inclined Yes Are they able to run or unable to run?
Message 26: having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications; qualified Yes Are they compelled to run or compelled to not run? Compelled to not run Compelled Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
com•pel
1. to force or drive, especially to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
2. to secure or bring about by force.
3. to force to submit; subdue.
4. to overpower.
5. Archaic to drive together; unite by force; herd.
6. to use force.
7. to have a powerful and irresistible effect, influence, etc.
Enjoy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 12:03 PM | | rueh has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 141 of 211 (633680)
09-15-2011 1:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 133 by Panda
09-15-2011 8:54 AM
|
|
Re: chance and necessity
Hi Panda I like the edits. Mostly ...
able + compulsed able + un-compulsed unable + compulsed unable + un-compulsed I agree that [willing]ness is no longer a factor when complusions\programs\rules take over the decision process -- this is the case with the sunflower. My only nits are (1) that I would use
- Compulsive action
- Compulsive inaction
- Non-compulsive reaction
And (2) that [willing]ness only applies when there is Non-compulsive reaction/s. Thus I would get
| Possibilities
| Non-compulsive Willing
| Non-compulsive Unwilling
| Compulsive action
| Compulsive inaction
| | Able
| (1) Able and
Non-compulsive Willing
| (2) Able and
Non-compulsive Unwilling
| (3) Able and
Compulsive action
| (4) Able and
Compulsive inaction
| | Unable
| (5) Unable and
Non-compulsive Willing
| (6) Unable and
Non-compulsive Unwilling
| (7) Unable and
Compulsive action
| (8) Unable and
Compulsive inaction
| In case (1) the action is taken.In case (2) the action is blocked by unwilling
In case (3) the action is taken.In case (4) the action is blocked by compulsive inaction in spite of being ableIn case (5) the action is blocked by unable In case (6) the action is blocked by unwilling and unable In case (7) the action is compulsively attempted but it is blocked by being unable In case (8) the action is blocked by unable and compulsive inaction You could also use programed action and programed inaction or ruled action and ruled inaction (overruled action?) with similar meaning Case (4) - not unable, not unwilling, action not taken due to compulsive\programed\ruled inaction Example: a soldier goes to his superior officer and volunteers for an action he proposes He is able (or he wouldn't volunteer to do the task) He is willing (or he wouldn't volunteer to do the task) The task is not done if the superior officer overrules him and refuses to let him take the action. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : program\rule Edited by RAZD, : overruled Edited by RAZD, : example
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 133 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 8:54 AM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 142 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 1:50 PM | | RAZD has replied | | | Message 143 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 1:50 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 145 of 211 (633699)
09-15-2011 5:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by Panda
09-15-2011 1:50 PM
|
|
Re: chance and necessity
Thanks Panda,
But my web-site had gone bat-shit, ... Yeah, mine does than now and then, usually during a reply flipping up and down the page too fast to read. I don't see it on other pages, so it may be a bug. What I find amusing is the image for: In case (7) the action is compulsively attempted but it is blocked by being unable Of someone compelled to keep trying even though it doesn't work. How many times do you see people repeating failure expecting positive results the next time ... Enjoy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 1:50 PM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 147 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 6:03 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 148 of 211 (633708)
09-15-2011 6:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 144 by rueh
09-15-2011 4:50 PM
|
|
ok who did a rain dance on my parade?
Hi rueh,
It depends on what the required action is. If I am required to respond and my ambivalence prevents that from occurring than I am unable to respond. This is what I mean by affirming the consequent.
Maybe you could help me see the error. If affirming the consequent is- 1.If P, then Q. 2.Q. 3.Therefore, P. P=compulsion, ambivalence, etc. Q=unable I don't think that my argument is- 1. If Compelled then Unable 2. Unable 3. Therefore compelled The way I am trying to express my argument is 1. If P, then Q 2. P Good, you looked it up (or knew it). Not many people would. The way I see it is this: Premise 1: if I am unable to respond, then no response will be made Premise 2: No response is made Conclusion 1: Therefore I am unable to respond and (this is the next step, and I could talk here about cognitive dissonance, where you have dissonance between able and failed response, forcing you to this next conclusion) Conclusion 2: Therefore whatever made the response fail made me unable to respond Whenever someone says "but that made you unable" this is what I see happening. This can be followed by ... Conclusion 3:"or it made you unwilling" ... which to me is tacit admission that it is NOT unable and NOT unwilling, but the dissonance between that and the belief that one or the other must be responsible.
Or 1. If compelled, ambivalent, etc. then unable 2. compelled, ambivalent, etc. 3. therefore unable This is begging the question -- here you've defined "compelled, ambivalent," to be unable, not concluded that being "compelled, ambivalent," makes you unable: your conclusion is built into the definition of "compelled, ambivalent," and you don't allow consideration that you can be "compelled, ambivalent," AND able. Compare that to Premise 1: if I am ambivalent about responding, then a response may not be made Premise 2: I am ambivalent about responding Conclusion 1: Therefore a response may not be made
Your ability to ride may be unaffected but your willingness is. If it is raining you are unwilling to ride your bike. You could ride, you enjoy riding except in the rain so you choose not to ride. Therefore you are unwilling to ride. There could be stipulations that effect your willingness such as priorities, at which time your unwillingness changes to willingness (but grumpy  ) 1.If rain, then unwilling to ride 2. Rain 3. Therefore unwilling or if we have other factors that affect your willingness then it would be 1. If P, then Q, unless X 2. P and X 3. Therefore not Q 1. If rain, then unwilling, unless late (for example) 2. Rain and late 3. Therefore not unwilling I agree that there can be reasons or possibilities for an action or inaction however I still think that all your examples can be expressed as either able, not able, willing, not willing. Amusingly I was just out for a quick ride into town, and I was caught by a downburst of rain. It poured and many people were caught. People looked at me funnily as I was laughing loudly at the situation: there I was, riding in the rain, willing or not. I am home and dried off now. If I was truly unwilling to ride in the rain, then I would have jumped off the bike, but instead I kept riding to my destination (and waited there until the rain stopped before coming home). What you have here is a conditional [willing]ness, rather than an absolute [willing]ness, and the conditional [willing]ness is dependent on factors beyond one's control. Conditions can change. I can also see conditions where you can be able and willing but forced to inaction, and conditions where you can be able but unwilling and forced to action, you can be unhappy about being forced against your will, but that doesn't make you willing or unwilling. Enjoy
As a side note. Your table in the message I was responding to had an error. Message 136 You have unwilling to decide in both a row and a column. and the corners were misplaced ... Thanks - fixed now Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 4:50 PM | | rueh has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 150 by rueh, posted 09-16-2011 10:25 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Hi Catholic Scientist Thanks
RAZD has done a good job showing how there are other possibilties for some things. Which examples, specifically, are you disagreeing with? It looks like Dawn Bertot Message 124 may have declared victory and left the thread ... (or are you just reading Dawn?) ... oh well. Enjoy.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 160 of 211 (634066)
09-18-2011 7:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 155 by rueh
09-18-2011 2:23 AM
|
|
Re: message 150 is dumb
Thanks rueh,
One it has the consequence of unwillingness being a cause for inability. Which means Spock could have said that there is only one reason for no response, they are unable to respond. which is just silly. That's where I was going to go in my reply to Message 150, glad you caught it. 
Two if we use such a bland definition it makes unable, unable to explain anything. If any and everything can be explained by inability then it is really explaining nothing at all. It may be grammatically correct to phrase inability in this manner but for the purposes of deduction it fails to hold water. Lastly it assumes the premise without actually providing any proof as to why this is the case. I believe this is what RAZD was explaining to me about begging the question. This is the problem that Dawn Bertot has, when you force the conclusion to meet your preconceptions, it is pseudologic (like pseudoscience).
I have yet to find any other reasons to prove that Spocks logic is sound but rest assured I will still gaze at my navel in search of an answer. Until then thank you for the discussion. Thank you Enjoy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 155 by rueh, posted 09-18-2011 2:23 AM | | rueh has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
special cases do not prove the general case
Hi Catholic Scientist, Just to be clear about my position (if this isn't already clear):
No, its not. Especially if you consider the whole situation: There may well be specific instances where [able]ness and [willing]ness are all that need to be considered, and the episode of Star Trek referenced may well be one, however this does not prove that the general case, which is what Dawn Bertot is arguing. My arguments apply to the general case. Enjoy
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 166 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2011 12:14 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 165 of 211 (634120)
09-19-2011 12:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 150 by rueh
09-16-2011 10:25 AM
|
|
back to response or communicate?
Hi rueh, picking up at the end of this (as the earlier issues have been dealt with in Message 155 and Message 160)
However, if we specify the definition of it, than you can not be able or willing and the task remain unaccomplished. I believe it relates to our Spock example that inspired this conversation and may allow for Spock to use the word respond instead of communicate and still be correct.
For example: - Our given task is for me to talk to you.
- I speak English and not French.
- You speak French and do not understand English.
If we define talk as to have words come out of my mouth. A broad definition. Then I am able, willing and the task is accomplished. However if we define the task of talking to you as words come out of my mouth, are heard by you and are understood by you. The first is response and the second is communication. If we concentrate on the first one, response, then the response is made, [able]ness and [willing]ness, are involved but there is a translation error that prevents understanding of the response.
So in our Spock example, if we define respond as, a transmission sent for the purpose of being received and understood by a second party, in this case the Enterprise. This gives us three things about a response that has to be fulfilled in order to be successful. - Response sent
- Response received
- Response understood
Then the ship is unable to respond since they are unable to accomplish the purpose of the task. The may be able to send the response but since the second and third part of the task is unfulfilled then they are unable to complete the task in its entirety. Again, this comes around to assuming only [able]ness and [willing]ness apply and then concluding that because they failed a further [task] that this means they were un[able] - begging the question again. Note that they have no control over (a) whether the response is received and (b) whether it is understood. Note further this is NOT part of their defined requirements (to be [able] or [willing]) that the response be received and understood. Again, you could have a situation where there is a high security system in place, and that the response is sent in a specific secure manner with encryption, and that without the proper security protocols it would not be detected or understood. That does not mean that they were un[willing] or un[able] but that there was an additional requirement that was not met by the Enterprise. Enjoy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 150 by rueh, posted 09-16-2011 10:25 AM | | rueh has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: The sunflower test
Hi Dawn Bertot,
Im not sure what you are going for in your Something Else, unless you can provide another word besides Able, to do what it needs to do with or without sunlight I don't need another word, Dawn, I just need to show that [able]ness and [willing]ness are not sufficient to categorize all the possibilities to falsify your claim that they are. In this specific case we have eliminated [willing]ness because there is no mechanism within the sunflower to be [willing] or un[willing]. That leaves [able]ness as the only remaining control if you are correct. However we have one (1) situation where the sunflower responds to the movement of the sunlamp and we have one (1) situation where the sunflower does not respond to the movement of the sunlamp. The [able]ness of the sunflower to turn with the sunlamp is demonstrated everytime it is tested with the sunlamp on, so it does not lose this [able]ness in between tests. Obviously, the sunflower is not [able] to turn the sunlamp on, so that is not a requirement for the sunflower to be [able] to respond. We also find through this testing that if the sunflower is [able] to respond to the sunlamp when it is on, that it is not un[able] to respond -- it responds every time. The sunflower is not in control over whether it turns to face the sunlamp or not, and the [able]ness of the sunflower does not determine whether it turns to face the sunlamp or not.
Since you have implied it can do something without a lamp hitting it or direct sunlight, I would suggest it is ABLE to function, with stored energy or low levels of light Correct it is [able] to function, agreed. However it does not turn to face the sunlamp when the lamp is off and moved.
Is that what you are getting at, or am I still missing the point?
it must be something else. Since you seem to be hinting at something besides able or unable, just tell me what that something is The [able]ness of the sunflower to function is not sufficient to explain the behavior. The behavior of the sunflower is programed\compulsive, with an internal programed\compulsive switch: if the switch is on the sunflower turns, if the switch is off the sunflower does not turn. The switch is turned [on] if there is an external stimulus (sunlight, sunlamp on) and the switch is turned [off] if the external stimulus is absent. The sunflower does not control the switch. The behavior of the sunflower is controlled by the presence or absence of an external stimulii not under it's control. It's behavior is compulsive\programed to act according to the switch. Enjoy.
|
™ Version 4.2