Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8945 total)
40 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, frako, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, ski zawaski, Tanypteryx (10 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,175 Year: 20,211/19,786 Month: 608/2,023 Week: 116/392 Day: 29/87 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
rueh
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(2)
Message 181 of 211 (634388)
09-21-2011 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
09-21-2011 12:51 AM


Re: The sunflower test - again
Hello RAZD,

Just a quick question I would like for to clear up if possible as I read through your discussion.

RAZD writes:

"having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications; qualified; having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity; possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective."

In this case with the sunflower, wouldn't the needed resource be the external stimuli of the sun or lamp? If that is absent then the sunflower does not respond. So it should be correct to say that it is unable do to it lacking the necessary resource of the external stimuli?

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2011 12:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2011 5:03 PM rueh has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20225
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 182 of 211 (634443)
09-21-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by rueh
09-21-2011 8:01 AM


Re: The sunflower test - again
Hi rueh, thanks

I'll take this quickly before I get to the rest of Dawn Bertot's posts.

In this case with the sunflower, wouldn't the needed resource be the external stimuli of the sun or lamp? If that is absent then the sunflower does not respond. So it should be correct to say that it is unable do to it lacking the necessary resource of the external stimuli?

No, the needed resource (etc) is the ability to detect the external stimulus when present. The sunflower as tested has that ability.

Certainly the flower is not able to make the sun shine or clouds to form.

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 181 by rueh, posted 09-21-2011 8:01 AM rueh has acknowledged this reply

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 183 of 211 (634474)
09-22-2011 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
09-21-2011 12:51 AM


Re: The sunflower test - again
ssive Compulsive behavior is similar. A person with OCD is forced to behave in certain ways, whether they are willing to behave in that manner or not (and it frequently is in spite of being unwilling to behave that way because of embarrassment). It over-rides [willing]ness.

So you are saying that an inability or unableness overrides willingness, correct?

d you say that its internal functions oare the functionCorrect, but when the external stimulus\signal is blocked or not sent it does not perform its internal functions to turn with the sun\sunlamp, even though it is able to do so.

Would you say that its internal functions ARE the function of the sunflower and they are its purpose as an organism?

But I'm not removing both. You have agreed that [willing]ness does not apply to the sunflower: there is, of course, no brain to be willing, but how do you explain the difference in behavior of the sunflower when you admit that it is [able] to function:

Because you havent told me what the function and purpose of the sunflower is, so as to determine if itis able to complete its function

• Why does the sunflower not turn to match the location of the sun on a cloudy day? -- it is "ABLE to complete its function" so what prevents it?
• Why does the sunflower not turn to match the location of the sunlamp when it is off? -- it is" ABLE to complete its function" so what prevents it?

Forgive me RAZD these are really stupid questions

it does not turn to the sun, because it is programmed to react by the sun. Hence even in this instance it is ABLE to complete its program of not responding

What we have instead of a subjective [willing]ness decision making process, is an objective programmed response that reacts according to the program and the input to the program.

Not quit as verbose but Yeah, thats what I just said, "its able"

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.

Again, response is not the issue. is it ABLE to NOT react, at times, according to its programming, Yes. Is it ABLE to react at times according to its programming, Yes

Hence able

Oh dear, what's going on here? Invention of an external [able]ness to prop up your claim? You are just sticking the word out there to attempt to claim that it now is a matter of [able]ness what decision is made by the program. That is not part of the definitions of the term [able] agreed to in Message 26: "having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications; qualified; having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity; possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective."

You sound desperate. My claim as has always been, "that it is now a matter of ableness"

have you been here the past few weeks?

I agreed to those definitions because they describe reality, not single organisms or personal decisions

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2011 12:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 4:32 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 184 of 211 (634475)
09-22-2011 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
09-21-2011 12:51 AM


Re: The sunflower test - again
Laws\rules and programs do not have [able]ness, they either work or they don't.

Im not even going to touch that one, do you see what you just did, you affirmed my position

The [able]ness is or isn't exhibited, it isn't 'decided' to be [able] or un[able] by some external source, but is a characteristic of the acting object - in this case the sunflower, where you have admitted that it is "ABLE to complete its function" -- and this is the only [able]ness that applies.

Wrong. Even in the case of the 2nd ship, while they were able in theory to make a response, were impeded by an outside external source. Namely that sorry son of a buck named Ricrdo Montbon. "with my last breath I spit at thee, from hells heart i stab at thee

wrong, even if the sunflower is able to NOT turn to the sun by its programming, it is Unable to complete its ultimate mission of polination, blossoming, so RAZD can admire its beauty,

Flower Boy

You might as well say "god/s-did-it" then and because god/s is [able] and [willing] then everything is due to the [able]ness and [willing]ness of god/s. This is called moving the goal posts, which is dishonest.

this statement has always amuzed me. why do you assume the goals posts were in the right position to begin with, because you liked where they were at?

except for one illustration, I havent even mentioned God

No everything is able and willing because of reality

But now pay close attention!!!!!!!!!!!

In truth there is no such thing as able or unable, there is only reality

however, when willingness by man or animal is figured in, then able and unable become a reality

decision making or the thought process is independant of reality, because thoughts have no reality. but they do make Able and Willing a reality. Otherwise there is just reality

Now do you see what I am saying

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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 180 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2011 12:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 5:06 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20225
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 185 of 211 (634566)
09-22-2011 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dawn Bertot
09-20-2011 6:48 PM


Re: the other words . . .
Hi Dawn Bertot,

Forgive me for taking so long to get back, I've gotten myself involved in responses on another thread that have sucked up more time than I intended, and I've had some work to do on the house before winter, Priorities, eh?

When we talk about the crew, it is their [able]ness or [willing]ness that applies, not anyone else, as that is who we evaluate for [able]ness or [willing]ness.

Even the second ships crews ableness and willing ness is irrelivant.. the condition that is preventing them is outside themselves. Some law of a physical nature was interrupted, broke or ignored

So even when they were willing and able, the source from which able and unable orginates acts to prevent or make them unable to contact the other ship

This doesn't make sense to me. When I look at the definitions we agreed on, they applied to an actor and an action to be taken: either the actor is [able] to take the action or not AND [willing] to take the action or not. Those are the boundaries of the issue.

If you go outside those boundaries, then we can consider that Little Tommie is [able] to tie his shoes but unwilling to do so, and his sister Matilda is [willing] to tie them for him, but un[able] to catch him to do it.

As a result, the crew did not send a response?

... Some law of a physical nature was interrupted, broke or ignored ...

Can you provide any examples of this occurring?

Are you saying that perhaps the sun doesn't 'rise' one day (according to the laws of physics regarding the earth spinning on it's axis) and this makes the sunflower un[able] to function? Yet we know the sunflower IS [able] to function, it just doesn't get the external stimulus because of absence of sunlight.

So even when they were willing and able, the source from which able and unable orginates acts to prevent or make them unable to contact the other ship

Perhaps the sun "stopping in the sky" prevents the crew from responding? How does this even begin to work?

No, the "source from which able and unable" comes from within the actor and from the technical devices or resources in their control (definitions, Message 26):

Def 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.
Def 2. having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity, etc, to do something: able to swim
Def 3: possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective able to perform under the contract

again Zen deist, you are letting a book decide the strict definiton of reality, instead of reality defining reality.

"Reason beyond his control" are called laws of reality that make him unable to complete that task. Unableness does not originate in a person or organism, it is decided by laws that superceed those properties, its called reality

So the whim of a superior officer, someone with different needs and agenda, is a "law of reality"???

Is this superior officer the reason that I end up riding my bicycle in the rain even though I am un[willin]g (but [able]) to do so?

No, Dawn Bertot, these are not things that make the soldier un[able] to perform the task - he has all the [able]ity to do so. They ARE reasons that the task is not completed.

wrong these are responses, or we could call them responses to reality and I could add 10000 more to the list. ...

Just like [willing]ness is a response to reality of no different character than each of these listed items. Thus we should discard [willing]ness?

The fact that you can add "10000 more to the list" doesn't make them any less an invalidation of your claim that ONLY [willing]ness and [able]ness are important - in fact it weakens your position.

... But as I have demonstrated they do not describe anything different besides willing or able, because they dont decide what able and willing is or is not. Reality does this for us

Where have you demonstrated that? I must have missed it in the process of answer each one of your posts. It seems to me that you are just claiming this because they do in fact invalidate your pet hypothesis, and the resulting cognitive dissonance forces you to develop some ad hoc rational to convince yourself otherwise.

... because they dont decide what able and willing is or is not. Reality does this for us

Curiously, they don't affect the [able]ness or the [willing]ness of the actor to complete the action, but they do affect whether or not the action is completed.

That means that the [able]ness or the [willing]ness of the actor to complete the action are not sufficient to determine whether the action is actually completed or not -- as you have previously claimed.

I have shown that no matter your example that reality and its laws only makes able or unable possible, depending on the task, you bellieve the property should accomplish

Again, please show where you have done this -- all I see is you making unsubstantiated claims.

Again you appear to be moving the goal posts ...

The physical reality of the earth spinning on its axis means that there is no sunlight when it is behind the other side of the earth, and that whether there is sunlight when it is on the same side of the earth is affected by the physical reality of clouds and weather.

These are not things that have a capacity to be [able] or [willing], they are inanimate objects exhibiting their normal everyday behavior. This behavior does affect whether the sunflower turns to face the sun, but they do not affect the [able]ness or the [willing]ness of the sunflower.

There is no external aspect here that have the capacity to be [able] or [willing], yet sometimes the action is completed and sometimes it is not: [able]ness and [willing]ness are not sufficient to explain these differences.

Enjoy.

Edited by Zen Deist, : No reason given.


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 177 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 6:48 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 12:21 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20225
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 186 of 211 (634579)
09-22-2011 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Dawn Bertot
09-20-2011 7:09 PM


Re: the other words . . . chaos rules
Hi again Dawn Bertot.

I've been out riding my bicycle 3 times today. It has also rained, but my un[willing]ness to ride in the rain was not a factor -- it did not rain while I was riding.

It was not my un[willing]ness that caused it not to rain while I was riding.

It was not my [able]ity or in[able]ity to forecast weather that caused it not to rain while I was riding. It was just chance -- the chance that it didn't rain even though the sky looked like it was going to at any minute.

There is no such thing as chaos.

I beg to differ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos

quote:
Science and mathematics
  • any state of confusion or disorder, see disorder (disambiguation)
  • Randomness, a lack of intelligible pattern or combination
  • Chaos theory, a branch of mathematics and physics that deals with the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems
  • Chaos (amoeba), a type of giant amoeba
  • Polynomial chaos, an expansion in probability theory, invented by Norbert Wiener
  • 19521 Chaos, a Trans-Neptunian Kuiper belt object
  • Chaosnet, an early set of network communication protocols
  • CHAOS (Linux distribution), designed for creating ad hoc computer clusters

Chaos theory has practical applications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

quote:
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.

Chaos theory is applied in many scientific disciplines: mathematics, programming, microbiology, biology, computer science, economics, [6][7][8] engineering,[9] finance,[10][11] meteorology,philosophy, physics, politics, population dynamics, psychology, and robotics.


Chaotic behavior is also recognized in many aspects of the natural world.

Chaos is a human expression with no basis in reality

Chaos theory is a recognition of the role of chaos in natural systems.

Chaos theory has also been used to generate random numbers.

The result of the coins flip is determined by strength, pressure, wieight of the coin and anyother law already in place, acted upon the coin

it is not chaotic or random, because those do not actually exist, its only the laws of nature or reality, going through thier motions

The result of the coins flip is only unknown (not random or chotic)to me because I have not at that moment figured out the laws that made its result, what it was. but those laws still exist even in that moment, even if I dont know what they were

In other words you just assume that IF you were able to understand and control all the factors involved, that THEN you could produce consistent heads or tails at will.

In reality, however, a person using a coin as a random generator will not attempt such control, but will instead use a common approach, with a variety of slight variations due to the biological improbability of exactly repeating any action in precisely the same way, and where these minute variations have chaotically large effect on the results: large end differences from minute initial variation, built into the biological system and surrounding conditions (wind, acceleration, etc).

Curiously, in reality, we see that overall probability shows mostly heads and tails in comparable numbers -- approaching very similar numbers as the total number of tosses increases. We also see, in reality, some results that are not heads or tails - the coin is not caught, falls in a crack, rolls off the table or it even lands on edge: rare compared to the normal heads or tails, but occurring in reality, none the less. Normally we say that the probability is 50:50, but that is not correct in reality. In reality it is more like 49.99999% heads, 49.99999% tails and 0.00002% other. Usually, in reality, when there is an "other" result, the toss is repeated to obtain a heads or a tails, because that is the desired randomized result.

There is no such thing as randomness or chaos

Amusingly the pattern of heads and tails from a large number of tosses is random - in the number of heads in a run, the number of tails in a run, the frequency of runs of specific lengths.

Curiously, if actual random patterns can be generated with little effort then randomness (and chaos) does exist in reality.

here is an example. If God exists and he is all knowing, would it be any trouble for him to make the coin come up heads 1000 times out of 1000, without any majic involved? Not at all, because he knows all the laws that would be required in that moment, to make that happen

Ah, but could your God make you toss "heads 1000 times out of 1000, without any majic involved?"

The possibility of a super race being able to sift out all the factors involved and control their actions precisely, does not mean that it is within the human capacity to understand and control. If it is impossible for a human brain to understand and of the human body to control all the factors then the end result is the same as if the system is entirely chaotic naturally -- the results are indistinguishable to a human being.

Chaos is either a natural element of the universe ...

Or it simply means the natural inability of biological beings to understand and control all the variables involved, particularly in conditions where small initial variations result in large scale differences.

There is no such thing as randomness or chaos

here is an example. If God exists and he is all knowing, ...

Then everything is predetermined, and [able]ness and [willing]ness are completely irrelevant, there is no free will.

So what you are desribing as chaotic is nothing of the sort. If I understood those laws required in that moment or in those consecutive tries, I could make the coin come up heads everytime

Therefore I am unable, not because I dont have the ABILITY to possibly know those laws, but because I dont at that moment know all the laws required to accomplish that feat

So while I have the ability from a logical standpoint, Im unable due to an outside inability

Now pay close attention. That which you describe as randomness, the coin coming up tales instead of heads, is not actually randomness, its simply existing laws being acted upon given the physics of any toss. No randomness in reality, just inaccuracy on my part by not abiding by the laws of nature,, correct?

Yes, and you can further claim that your in[able]ity to understand, and your in[able]ity to control all the factors, actually en[able] you to generate a random series of coin tosses in random patterns in the number of heads in a run, the number of tails in a run, the frequency of runs of specific lengths.

That makes you simultaneously un[able] AND [able], a rather curious situation to be sure.

No randomness in reality, just inaccuracy on my part by not abiding by the laws of nature,, correct?

Just to be precise: what you are claiming here is equivalent to saying that you are unable to tie your shoes and that makes you unable to answer the phone ... which is, of course, ridiculous. Remember this?

Message 125 : 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.

... and your response?

Message 152: Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonest

This is precisely what you are doing with the coin toss scenario.

It is possible to envisage an [able]ity to be control the coin toss precisely to cause a desired result, but it is not practical.

It is practical to envisage a [willing]ness to operate a coin toss in an unpredictable manner and an [able]ity to generate random results from it.

That doesn't make you (the crew of the second ship, etc) either [able] or [willing] to accomplish the task at hand (respond to the enterprise, etc) it only makes you [able] and [willing] to toss the coin in a random manner. What you do as a result of the coin toss is then randomly generated.

here is an example. If God exists and he is all knowing,

Here's another "what if" scenario: what if god/s are almost all knowing and almost all powerful in their ability to create a universe, and they decide that they don't want to know or be able to predict the results of their creation ... what if they intentionally include chaos as a randomizing factor to create the greatest possible diversity, including things they cannot predict. What if their parting words are "surprise me\us"?

Enjoy.

Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty


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 178 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 7:09 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 1:08 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20225
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 187 of 211 (634582)
09-22-2011 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Dawn Bertot
09-20-2011 11:46 PM


Re: several terms already provided - no refutation
Hi again Dawn Bertot

There is no aspect of [able]ness or [willing]ness that can control these external conditions.

Sure there is. If I am able to know and employ the necessary laws already in place Those external conditions will make me able, correct?

If you are able to know, and able to employ the necessary laws to make the earth stop spinning while still maintaining life on the planet in general, and the life of a sunflower in particular, then (a) you would effectively be a god, and (b) all you would do is make an external stimulus appear that already appears naturally.

The ability of the sunflower to turn to face the sun would not be altered. It would still operate according to its internal program (natural laws, etc).

But you can also use a sunlamp to make the sunflower turn where you want ... naturally ... by taking advantage of the program and the ability of the sunflower to compulsively turn to face the stimulus.

YOU may be [able] and [wiling] to do this, however it does not affect the [able]ness of the sunflower or its compulsion to behave according to the internal program. And it STILL won't turn when the sun is not out or the lamp is not on, even though it is still [able] to do so and is still compulsively behaving according to the internal program.

Enjoy.

Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty


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 179 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 11:46 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 9:13 AM RAZD has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 188 of 211 (634595)
09-23-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by RAZD
09-22-2011 5:57 PM


Re: the other words . . .
This doesn't make sense to me. When I look at the definitions we agreed on, they applied to an actor and an action to be taken: either the actor is [able] to take the action or not AND [willing] to take the action or not. Those are the boundaries of the issue.

If you go outside those boundaries, then we can consider that Little Tommie is [able] to tie his shoes but unwilling to do so, and his sister Matilda is [willing] to tie them for him, but un[able] to catch him to do it.

As a result, the crew did not send a response?

of course it applies to the scenario in the movie, but My original implication was that it applies to reality. Remember me saying at one point forget about the scenario

Of course they didnt send a response, most were tied up or dead another was screaming like a girl, whilst getting a thorny, horny worm stuck in his ear. crybaby

hence Spocks statement applies to this disruption of laws that would otherwise allow them, therefore inability, because they were unable to respond, because of an outside influence, Kahn. IOWs something other than thier inability

Can you provide any examples of this occurring?

I just did

Are you saying that perhaps the sun doesn't 'rise' one day (according to the laws of physics regarding the earth spinning on it's axis) and this makes the sunflower un[able] to function? Yet we know the sunflower IS [able] to function, it just doesn't get the external stimulus because of absence of sunlight.

First tell me what is the goal or function of the sunflower

No, the "source from which able and unable" comes from within the actor and from the technical devices or resources in their control (definitions, Message 26):

Did you fall and hit your head whilst riding your bike?

wrong. like the function and purpose of the sunflower, in the scenario, you shift back and forth on what impeded thier success in completing the response

you mix up responses with success or ultimate goals. The goal of the second ship was not to simply respond and therefore claim they were able and therefore sucessful

Something outside themselves impeded thier goal of getting a message thru. thier willingness is not simply to respond,but get the message thru

So while they were willing from every aspect they were unable to accomplish thier task, Correct?

Where would you get the nusty idea that unable only refers to the actor and the things at his disposal. even so, wouldnt the things at his disposal include someone shoving a bug in your ear

Def 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.
Def 2. having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity, etc, to do something: able to swim
Def 3: possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective able to perform under the contract]

I think the people that gave these definitions, did not feel it necessary to explain that someones inability, whilst having all of the above, could be interuppted by an outside source. and therefore make it unable, even possesing the above in theory.

I bet they thought most people would be able to figure that out.

So the whim of a superior officer, someone with different needs and agenda, is a "law of reality"???

Yes ,it is reality if it happened and therefore a law

Is this superior officer the reason that I end up riding my bicycle in the rain even though I am un[willin]g (but [able]) to do so?

Can you provide another word besides able or willing to explain your actions

No, Dawn Bertot, these are not things that make the soldier un[able] to perform the task - he has all the [able]ity to do so. They ARE reasons that the task is not completed.

Was he able or unable to have the ability?

Was he able or unable to complete the task?

Was the task able or unable to be completed?

The physical reality of the earth spinning on its axis means that there is no sunlight when it is behind the other side of the earth, and that whether there is sunlight when it is on the same side of the earth is affected by the physical reality of clouds and weather.

These are not things that have a capacity to be [able] or [willing], they are inanimate objects exhibiting their normal everyday behavior. This behavior does affect whether the sunflower turns to face the sun, but they do not affect the [able]ness or the [willing]ness of the sunflower.

So ableness in your view is whether the sunflower only has the capacity, but not whether it completes its function, correct

Wouldnt the purpose or function, define the task and hence make it able or unable to complete its intended purpose

So, if , "This behavior that DOES affect whether the sunflower does turn to face the sun", wouldnt this behavior by the sun affect whether it is able or unable to complete its ultimate goal? IOWs an outside influence

Lets say someone walks by and steps on the sunflower, so while the flower from a genetic standpoint still has the microscopic ABILITY to turn to the sun, will someone stepping on it prevent it from completing its goal or purpose, therefore make it unable

So do you still want to argue that ableness and unableness is limited to the flower and not another outside influence

However:

Even if I go with your interpretation of the source of ableness or unableness, it still only comes up Able or unable, correct?

Dawn bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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 185 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2011 5:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 2:49 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 3:30 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 3:47 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 189 of 211 (634596)
09-23-2011 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
09-22-2011 9:07 PM


Re: the other words . . . chaos rules
In other words you just assume that IF you were able to understand and control all the factors involved, that THEN you could produce consistent heads or tails at will.

In reality, however, a person using a coin as a random generator will not attempt such control, but will instead use a common approach, with a variety of slight variations due to the biological improbability of exactly repeating any action in precisely the same way, and where these minute variations have chaotically large effect on the results: large end differences from minute initial variation, built into the biological system and surrounding conditions (wind, acceleration, etc).

Curiously, in reality, we see that overall probability shows mostly heads and tails in comparable numbers -- approaching very similar numbers as the total number of tosses increases. We also see, in reality, some results that are not heads or tails - the coin is not caught, falls in a crack, rolls off the table or it even lands on edge: rare compared to the normal heads or tails, but occurring in reality, none the less. Normally we say that the probability is 50:50, but that is not correct in reality. In reality it is more like 49.99999% heads, 49.99999% tails and 0.00002% other. Usually, in reality, when there is an "other" result, the toss is repeated to obtain a heads or a tails, because that is the desired randomized result.

Simply give me an example in the real world, that is not one thing happenings as a result of another. A logical sequence of events. there is no such thing as chaos

This is precisely what you are doing with the coin toss scenario.

It is possible to envisage an [able]ity to be control the coin toss precisely to cause a desired result, but it is not practical.

It is practical to envisage a [willing]ness to operate a coin toss in an unpredictable manner and an [able]ity to generate random results from it.

If I understood all the physical laws each time I tossed the coin, I could control what I wanted it to be. Because those laws exist in reality and they are not random, because there is no such thing as random, its a made up word that does not reflect reality, that is only laws and events flowing one from another. No chaos, no randomness

Without a lot of verbage and complicated examples, give me an example of chaos or randomness in the real world, not with numbers or symbols

It is possible to envisage an [able]ity to be control the coin toss precisely to cause a desired result, but it is not practical.

To see ones self doing something is not the same as knowing that if I understood all the facts which actually do exist, that I could control the results

God is all knowing, which means he knows even the most minute details. It means he could throw the coin to the desired result an unlimited amount of times

he would not need to work out any details, as the so-called details are already a part of his enternal existence

Here's another "what if" scenario: what if god/s are almost all knowing and almost all powerful in their ability to create a universe, and they decide that they don't want to know or be able to predict the results of their creation ...

This is like asking if god can make a rock bigger than he can lift, its nonsensical

God cannot NOT know something or choose to not know something, thats idiocy.

He is law and all knowledge at the sametime, there is no sepration or suppressing it by himself

The moment he chose (in theory0 to forget something, which he could not do anyway, he would cease to be God

How do you seperate infinity from infinity. Heres a hint, you cant, its a logical impossibility

Even God cannot do that which is logically impossible, because 'logical impossibility' is a concept, it does not exist in reality

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 186 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2011 9:07 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 4:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 190 of 211 (634649)
09-23-2011 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by RAZD
09-22-2011 9:25 PM


Re: several terms already provided - no refutation
YOU may be [able] and [wiling] to do this, however it does not affect the [able]ness of the sunflower or its compulsion to behave according to the internal program. And it STILL won't turn when the sun is not out or the lamp is not on, even though it is still [able] to do so and is still compulsively behaving according to the internal program.

This is silly. Able in theory is not able in actuality. I may have the ability to fall off a building, but until it happens, its not actually a real thing.

Therefrore your imagining that ability is actual, even when it did not happpen does not constitute Able. Your just muzing or waxing philosophical

demonstrate how an imagined ability is actually real. One can only theorize of its actuality, because it was not carried out

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2011 9:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 5:05 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20225
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 191 of 211 (635013)
09-25-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Dawn Bertot
09-22-2011 1:16 AM


Re: The sunflower test - again & again ...
Hi Dawn Bertot,

Sorry to take so long getting back to you, but I've had other priorities and demands on my time.

I have been able and willing to get out riding my bicycle several times in the last week, and the weather here has been rather unsettled, raining most days at some point and sunny at others.

I managed to ride my bike without riding in the rain. Although I may have delayed starting when it was raining it didn't rain once I was out. Again, it was not because I am unwilling to ride in the rain that it didn't rain once I was out, just that the situation did not occur.

So you are saying that an inability or unableness overrides willingness, correct?

No, I am saying that OCD people are partly like the sunflower: when a specific stimulus occurs they behave in a specific way, but when it doesn't occur that they can behave in a more normal fashion.

This is independent of [able]ness and [willing]ness.

Would you say that its internal functions ARE the function of the sunflower and they are its purpose as an organism?

Organisms got purpose?

The internal functions are what make it a functioning sunflower -- isn't that rather tautological?

Are you asking if they are [able] to be a sunflower because they [are] a sunflower?

But I'm not removing both. You have agreed that [willing]ness does not apply to the sunflower: there is, of course, no brain to be willing, but how do you explain the difference in behavior of the sunflower when you admit that it is [able] to function:

Because you havent told me what the function and purpose of the sunflower is, so as to determine if itis able to complete its function

Fishing expedition?

The purpose of the sunflower is to confound you and falsify your claim that only [able]ness and [willing]ness apply. So far it is able to accomplish that task.

• Why does the sunflower not turn to match the location of the sun on a cloudy day? -- it is "ABLE to complete its function" so what prevents it?
• Why does the sunflower not turn to match the location of the sunlamp when it is off? -- it is" ABLE to complete its function" so what prevents it?

Forgive me RAZD these are really stupid questions

it does not turn to the sun, because it is programmed to react by the sun. Hence even in this instance it is ABLE to complete its program of not responding

It's not a "program of not responding" it completes its program by responding and it completes its program by not responding.

They may seem stupid, but you haven't answered them. Let me flesh it out for you:

  1. Why does the sunflower turn to match the location of the sun on a sunny day? -- it is "ABLE to complete its function" ... but
  2. Why does the sunflower not turn to match the location of the sun on a cloudy day? -- it is "ABLE to complete its function" so what prevents it?
    What is different about the sunflower?

  3. Why does the sunflower turn to match the location of the sunlamp when it is on? -- it is" ABLE to complete its function" ... but
  4. Why does the sunflower not turn to match the location of the sunlamp when it is off? -- it is" ABLE to complete its function" so what prevents it?
    What is different about the sunflower?

What is different about the sunflower that causes response in one instance and no response in the other?

If there is no difference in the sunflower, then the result is not dependent on the [able]ness of the sunflower.

We have already established that there is no [willing]ness involved in this plant,

Thus we establish that we cannot explain the different responses of the sunflower with the [able]ness and [willing]ness of the sunflower, but that we need to look at a wider set of behavior control categories for the sunflower.

We find that [program]ing answers the issue of different behaviors.

Again, response is not the issue. is it ABLE to NOT react, at times, according to its programming, Yes. Is it ABLE to react at times according to its programming, Yes

Correction 1: response IS the issue, it is the action that applies to the situation.

Correction 2: is it ABLE to NOT react, at ALL times, according to its programming, Yes. Is it ABLE to react at ALL times according to its programming, Yes.

The [able]ness of the sunflower to do both programed actions\responses is simultaneously present at ALL times.

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't react, however in ALL times it is "ABLE to react" ...

That [able]ness does not determine the response.

You sound desperate. My claim as has always been, "that it is now a matter of ableness"

have you been here the past few weeks?

I agreed to those definitions because they describe reality, not single organisms or personal decisions

Without showing why [able]ness does not determine the response.

The earth is able to orbit the sun? Is that where you are going?

Do you remember this:

Message 152 Dawn Bertot:
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.

Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonest

So if you are not doing this, then we are back again to the sunflower and the task of turning to face the lightsource, rather than planets orbiting the sun.

Being desperate is claiming "that it is now a matter of ableness" without showing how that explains the different behaviors of the sunflower.

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 183 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2011 1:16 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 9:47 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20225
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 192 of 211 (635015)
09-25-2011 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dawn Bertot
09-22-2011 1:29 AM


Re: The sunflower test - again now with flower power added!!!!
Hi again Dawn Bertot,

Laws\rules and programs do not have [able]ness, they either work or they don't.

Im not even going to touch that one, do you see what you just did, you affirmed my position

Again, I'll be more specific.

A program does not have [able]ness - it either is functional or it is non-functional. If it is non-functional then there is something wrong in the coding. When it is functional the output of the program is controlled by the coding according to external input that is not part of the program. The existence or absence of the external input does not change the functionality of the program. The results of the program are different with different external inputs, but that does not affect the functionality of the program.

Wrong. Even in the case of the 2nd ship, while they were able in theory to make a response, were impeded by an outside external source. Namely that sorry son of a buck named Ricrdo Montbon. "with my last breath I spit at thee, from hells heart i stab at thee

So the cause of the response not being received by the enterprise was that it was blocked, and not because they were unable or unwilling. Thanks.

wrong, even if the sunflower is able to NOT turn to the sun by its programming, it is Unable to complete its ultimate mission of polination, blossoming, so RAZD can admire its beauty,

Flower Boy

Well ... I was in Haight/Asbury in the '60's, and I did own a VW bus with flowers on it ...

Problem is, the sunflower can still grow, blossom, be pollinated (by birds and bees -- another external control ... that could affect the pollination now ... ) and bear seeds -- and you previously conceded that it was able to fill it's internal functions.

this statement has always amuzed me. why do you assume the goals posts were in the right position to begin with, because you liked where they were at?

except for one illustration, I havent even mentioned God

And I predicted that you would mention it.

Curiously I assume that the goal posts were where they were at the beginning Message 18:

Message 14:
Message 1: My first goal is to restate Dawn Bertot's position to show that I understand it:

Does this show all the possibilities as Spock implied (IIRC the comment was that they did not respond because they were either unwilling or unable to respond, or something similar):



willing
not[willing]
able
willing & able
reply made

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

Where not[X] is the logical form for everything that is not included in [X] (used like (-x) in maths).

In other words, is it your position that there are four possible outcomes:

  1. willing & able - reply made
  2. not[willing] but able - reply not made = Spock's "unwilling"
  3. willing but not[able] - reply not made = Spock's "unable"
  4. not[willing] & not[able] - reply not made = both

and

In other words, is it your position that there are four possible outcomes:

1.willing & able - reply made
2.not[willing] but able - reply not made = Spock's "unwilling"
3.willing but not[able] - reply not made = Spock's "unable"
4.not[willing] & not[able] - reply not made = both

Yes true, this is my position.

That's where the goal posts were at the start.

Now I'm going to ride my bike, and I am betting that it won't rain.

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 184 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2011 1:29 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 6:36 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 195 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 10:05 PM RAZD has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 193 of 211 (635018)
09-25-2011 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by RAZD
09-25-2011 5:06 PM


Re: The sunflower test - again now with flower power added!!!!
That's where the goal posts were at the start.

Now I'm going to ride my bike, and I am betting that it won't rain.

Whew, I thought you had given up, glad to see you hadnt.

Have fun riding your bkie Zen Deist, Ill get to the task of destroying both your latest arguments and ego a bit later. Ha Ha

Dawn Bertot

Do you know what the Zen Deist said to the hot dog vender, "Make me one with everything"

Sorry I had to


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 5:06 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 194 of 211 (635029)
09-25-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by RAZD
09-25-2011 4:32 PM


Re: The sunflower test - again & again ...
I am saying that OCD people are partly like the sunflower: when a specific stimulus occurs they behave in a specific way, but when it doesn't occur that they can behave in a more normal fashion.
This is independent of [able]ness and [willing]ness.

Unfortunately this is double talk. By discribing OCB you have contrasted it with what is considered normal behavior. Why you would conclude that this is something different than ability, is beyond me.

You have simply stated they are unable to act in a normal fashion, or what you consider normal

I find it interesting that you keep saying that this or that is independant from able or willinng, or you say able or willing does not cover this or that area, but then wont provide a word that is different than those two or is not covered by those two

Youve amazingly stated that you dont need another word, but with more double talk assure us that it is different than able or willing

Sunflowers got purpose?

Ofcourse they do. Sunflowers exist in real time, they function, they live and die, they all do the samething
You are the one that is using them as an example. You therefore believe they have function and purpose. What is it?

It's not a "program of not responding" it completes its program by responding and it completes its program by not responding.

Ok, so provide me another word in either of these instances, that is different than and means something other than able or unable

What is different about the sunflower that causes response in one instance and no response in the other?
If there is no difference in the sunflower, then the result is not dependent on the [able]ness of the sunflower.
We have already established that there is no [willing]ness involved in this plant,
Thus we establish that we cannot explain the different responses of the sunflower with the [able]ness and [willing]ness of the sunflower, but that we need to look at a wider set of behavior control categories for the sunflower.
We find that [program]ing answers the issue of different behaviors.

It does not matter if programming answers the issue of different behaviors. Hyothetically, If there never was any sunlight, after say, the plant was only half developed it would be unable to complete its ultimate funtion of blooming or polination or whatever its ultimate purpose is

Your huge mistake is assuming that ability has only to do with the flower itself. it does not matter whether these (Laws) are only laws functioning or not, they affect the flowers ablilty. One could theorize a nuclear holocost or meteroite hit that would block the sun for huge amounts of time, at which case it would render the flower unable to complete its function

Erronesously you assume that able and unable are obligated to describe the flowers programming. they have nothing to do with that directly, as a part of the flowers makeup. they only decide if the flower will or will not complete its intended design and function

The sunflower may have many programmed functions, but only one one real purpose.

Correction 1: response IS the issue, it is the action that applies to the situation.
Correction 2: is it ABLE to NOT react, at ALL times, according to its programming, Yes. Is it ABLE to react at ALL times according to its programming, Yes.
The [able]ness of the sunflower to do both programed actions\responses is simultaneously present at ALL times.
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't react, however in ALL times it is "ABLE to react" ...
That [able]ness does not determine the response.

Again with respect, this is nonsense, (yours not mine)

Heres why. Imagined ability and inablity is not real. Something has to actually happen in reality for ability and inability to be real themselves.

When the sunflower is hit by the sun it turns. When there are clouds or night blocking the sun, this is a real action taking place that makes the flower unable to complete its function or programming.

Your huge mistake is assuming that ability and inability only take place in the organism itself. All of reality make things able or unable, not just the organism, or imagined ability or inability

Are you starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, or are the rocks blocking the sun?

There is no such thing as ableness and unableness existing at the sametime, when refering to the same specific function, of the same specific organism

the ability to turn or not turn are not ableness at the sametime, that is an imagined property not a real one. it is only able or unable at any given time in reality. You cant just make stuff up and hope it is real, it has to be real

f you are not doing this, then we are back again to the sunflower and the task of turning to face the lightsource, rather than planets orbiting the sun.
Being desperate is claiming "that it is now a matter of ableness" without showing how that explains the different behaviors of the sunflower.

Zen Deist, all of reality and its functioning laws make able and unable a reality and all affect those real causes. Imagined abilites dont really exits, that is why your argument seems to work in theory, but doesnt work upon closer examination, or in reality

It also demonstrates that all of the laws in reality determine what able and unableness are or are not. It also clarifies the fact that there are no other areas (words) to describe actions in reality except, Able and unable

Imagined abilites or uncaused ableness or inability, as you have postualted are no more real than Chaos or randomness

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 191 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 4:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 8:45 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 195 of 211 (635030)
09-25-2011 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by RAZD
09-25-2011 5:06 PM


Re: The sunflower test - again now with flower power added!!!!
So the cause of the response not being received by the enterprise was that it was blocked, and not because they were unable or unwilling. Thanks.

Able or unable in Reality, ZD, not just from a perspective or imagined scenario and thats all that matters is reality. The blocking is reality, the blocking made it unable in reality, not just from ones perspective

here is the difference in your position and mine.

Imagining what the sunflowers abilites are or are not in theory is not what is happening in reality. reality says at any given moment it is either responding or it is not, depending on sources outside itself.

What was actually blocking the signal in reality and what was happening at that moment to make able or unable. Non-reality is imagining what thier abilites or capabilites were or were not in that moment, only one was real. Guess which one

Starting to get it?

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 5:06 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 10:26 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019