|
Author
|
Topic: Subjective Evidence of Gods
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
There are many other possibilities. Then present the other possibilites that are different than the only two or not a combination of those two. You do realize that that premise has been around for thousands of years and now you purport to solve the mystery? Butterfly do you even understand what you are talking about? Dawn Bertot
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Are these enough alternatives to show I do know what I am talking about? Or are you of the mind that the only two possibilties for the creation of the universe is the process outlined in the Jewish bible and natural causes. Even though 'natural causes' is unspecific and could mean many things including theories as yet unthought of. To refute natural causes you would have to claim that any future theories are also incorrect without them actually existing yet. You miss the point entirely. Ill try and be specific and very logical. Butterfly there can be no other alternatives, because it would involve a logical contradiction Every single example you provided falls squarely within one of the alternatives. If you think I am wrong present the one you think is another alternative and Ill show you why it is not. Logically there can only be the eternality of a being or the eternality of matter. No discovery ever made or will be made will change that situation. Think about it hard and you will see that conclusion. If you think I am wrong, do what I asked you to Existene itself is the issue, not the universe. existence will only allow certain possibilites. It is true only one is correct, because both cant be. However the duality as IMJ describes it is the issue Here is an example, On the enterprise on one occcasion, Mr Spock stated to the Captain, "Captain there are only two logical possibilites, they are unable to respond, ther are unwilling to respond." No matter the reason, it will fall sqaurely within those limited possibilites, or it will be a combination of both, but no more. Thats all existence will allow Existence, reality and logic will only allow to alternatives to the cause of existence Test me with your alternatives you gave and see if it is not correct. Each time you present an example it will involve only the eternality of a being or the eternality of matter You know why, theres nothing else. Purposing that there is involves a logical contradiction. Its like saying theres a round square, or square circle When I say only two alternatives I dont mean choices of WHO, but what existence will allow from a physicaland logical standpoint Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
The creation of the universe is the specific action I was discussing. Not existence. The creation of the universe. I have no desire to get into any existential debates about existence. There are unending debates already occuring regarding this issue. For example, if humans were not here, would the universe exist? Something like if a tree falls in the forest and noone was around, would it still make a sound. I find these philisophical discussions boring and ultimately pointless. Hardly boring and certaily not pointless. the two possibility principle can only be applicable to existence itself. the universe is I believe a part of the existence, no?
The creation myth of the OT is one of many different creation myths. Thus it is not the only option with regards to supernatural creation theories. Natural causes can refer to any number of known and unknown theories. Thus it cannot really be used as a single option. I could change the options to be thus - 1. The creation story as outlined in the Old Testement. 2. The creation story as discussed in Hindu mythology (Brahma, the Hindu God of creation). This is another example of the false dichotomy fallacy as it gives only two options when others exist. At any rate the Only two logical possibi;ity policy can and does apply to existence itself. there are no other alternative to explore
I will always applaud a Star Trek reference. However, there is a third and forth option not considered by Kirk or Spock. The third option is : They are responding in a manner that we cannot understand or detect. Sorry this wont work because it falls under the category of UNABLE, it does not matter the reason, the nature of existence wont allow another category
The forth option is that the subject of their communication is unaware of the original communication and is not aware it needs to respond to anything. Sorry UNABLE and UNWILLING. If the enterprise is willing that they reply, the problem of non or miscommunication falls to the enterprise. the Un able and unwilling applies to both parties because it involes each
This is only a relatively recent discovery. Plants have been communicating with one another (even different species) all this time and we have not known about it. Are you kidding I saw the Happening. M. Night Ramaladingdng
Lets say that we have been communicating with a plant and it has been responding by way of chemical communication in the air. We have not known of this method and we have not known what it meant until very recently. Sorry UNABLE. existence wont allow anything else
if aliens came to Earth in the 1st century AD and blasted communications to us using standard radiowaves, humanity would never have known. They may have said we were unable or unwilling to respond. This is not the case, we would not have known that any communication was even being attempted. If they were smart aliens they would be correct, UNABLE Its a logical impossibility and a logical contradiction to look for another option, it wont work
PS. I hope you dont mind me adding one of your comments to my signature. It seems fitting and it is poor form to make up your own nickname. Not at all and I hope you take it in the spirit it was given, a friendly jibe. I am a huge Green Acres fan and Mr Douglas, the brilliant, educated harvard lawyer amoung those silly people was a riot His favorite expression was "You Mallethead" But Mr Douglas you dont understand, you still have to pay the State, frieght, crate rate, on the Dully Higgins original" Mr Douglas. "Who is Dully Higgins" Alf Monroe, "Only the greatest freight crate writer in the county. Didnt you see his work at the Smithsonian" Mr Douglas, "No, I missed that it must have been on the third floor" Paul Henning was the Master, The beverly hillbilles Hippie, "You smoke crawdads" Sir Jethro the Bodine. "Sure its easy, get a little pot cook it up, then enjoy it" 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.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Your replies are simply not correct. The word used is respond. Not communicate. It is possible and quite common for something to have a response without the target receiving the response. In the first example, the responder is able to respond. But the receiver is not able to understand the response. This means that communication has failed, but the response was sent by a willing and able subject. Believe me there is a point to this madness. I sorry but I dont think you are seeing very simple points. If the recieve is not ABLE to recieve the response, (for any reason) then the sender is UNABLE to respond irregardless if they sent the message. therefore unable. Nice try though
The second example, the subject can be both willing and able to respond but is unaware of the original communication. This means that communication has failed. But the subject was willing and able to respond. Respond is different to communicate. Communication is a two way street. Response does not have this restriction. The expression "communication has failed", means that they are unable to recieve the info, correct. Remember though the enterprise is party in the process as well. You cant only look at it from the other ships perspective. It takes two to tango. If the other ship is not aware of thier communication, then from the enterprises perspective, they are unable to respond The only way your scenerio would work is if neither ship was tyring to contact eachother or there was no situation at all
Are you suggesting that plant to plant communication does not occur. I certainly hope it does because I am considering this subject for my masters. If you actually do not believe or understand this issue, let me know and I will provide ample evidence. heck I cant even understand IMJ or Iano when they speak and now you want me to listen to plants. let me figure these goomers out first I wonder what aplant thinks right before you cram it in your mouth. Oh crap, Oh crap, Oh crap
A response does not require the receiver to actually receive the response. A response can be without a receiver at all. If the word communication was in your original example, then everything you have said would make perfect sense. As the word response was in the original example, it does not make sense. The words UNABLE and UNWILLING have to have meaning to both parties, otherwise it makes no sense. Think about it logically Spock is the one making the suggestion in the first place. unable has to have meaning to the originator as well
reponse does not require the receiver to actually receive the response Correct. However, if the enterprise is wishing for a reception of that response, then from the enterprises perspective they were unable, no matter the failed reason. Both parties are a part of the scenario Maybe what we are discussing here will assit you and IMJ in that discussion. I hope so No amount of logic or rangling will allow you to go past the only options, there are no others Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Do you get it? Probably not. But that is your problem, not mine. I can only explain things to you as best i can. If you choose to ignore the simple explanation, what point is there in continuing to show different examples of how you are incorrect. It is an interesting conversation simply because, if for nothing else it demonstrates that you believe you cannot be wrong in any circumstance
If the reciever does not get the response, for any reason, it does not mean that the response is not given. I will give you a really simple example. I just went outside and screamed 'Dawn Bertot does not get it' as loud as possible. I was willing to give that response. I was able to give that response. You did not receive that response. This means that communication failed. The response was given.I was not unable to respond Butterfly, the key words that relate to reality are unable and unwilling, not communication and the others you provided. Each term has to relate the situation at hand. I noticed you agreed that the words have a meaning to both parties and they must relate to the scenerio at hand Here is another example. Lets say I go out and make a scientifiky attempt to reach other life forms in the universe. I COMMUNICATE but no one recieves the message. In this instance it does not matter whether they recieve my communication or I responded, or are I am unable from thier perspective, I am UNABLE to accomplish my task, irregardless of communication, response or anyother term you wish to throw at it Hence it does not matter if I am able and willing as you indicate in your examples, I am UNABLE to accomplish my task. That is how the Star Trek example applies in that situation Hence your distinction concerning words makes no difference. The task is the goal, I and they are UNABLE to accomplish our task. Now do you get it
I was willing and able to respond But UNABLE to accomplish your task. That is how and where the distinction must be made. The other ship was unable to accomplish thier task of communication even thought they responded and the enterprise was unable to recieve it, hence everyone was unable to accomplish thier task
Communication is different from response. Communication does require and interaction between two (or more). A response can be undetected by the target. That is the key difference you are missing. These two words are irrelevant when the the over all purpose or task is taken into cosideration, as I have now demonstrated both by argument and example. I dont care if I communicate, I dont care if I respond to aliens, If they dont here me I am UNABLE TO ACCOMPLISH MY TASK. This is the context of Mr Spocks statement. The other ship is unable to accomplish reaching the enterprise Think of the overall purpose and task at hand when using the terms, UNABLE and UNWIILING, not what happens inside that context. The terms have to inculcate the whole of the scenario
This is an example of communication. Which is different from a response. It is irrelevant when the overall purpose or goal is taken into consideration, as you now see, by what I have indicated and demonstrated Is the light bulb coming on yet? Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
Message 420 of 468 (631559)
09-01-2011 6:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 419 by Straggler
09-01-2011 11:13 AM
|
|
Re: Being dishonest
Straggler writes I did this and got the following sort of thing: Islamic Converts Link writes:
Below a collection of converts' stories which are enlightening, heart-warming and inspiring in equal measure. These new Muslims come from a variety of backgrounds. They include intellectuals, scientists, priests, Rabbis, missionaries, and artists, young and old, famous and laypersons, from around the globe. Most of these converts are former Christians or from a Christian background. These testimonies only represent a drop in the ocean however, since every day hundreds of people convert to Islam all around the world. Amongst the most powerful and thought-provoking testimonies are those of former Christian priests and missionaries who have discovered the one true religion. This is a tremendous challenge to Christian missionaries. Really Straggler, lets see this list, with the confessionals on the ocean of people that have converted. Perhaps like many things this is greatly exaggerated. Would you happen to have the visual evidence that supports this claim Dawn Bertot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 419 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2011 11:13 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD That is an incorrect assumption. I can be wrong. I do not belive that I cannot be wrong. I am not wrong in this particular circumstance. While that is an admirable admission, it is easy to see the walls of your position starting to cave in
responding does not require the second party to be aware of or able to understand the information Typically no, but in this instance and in this scenario, it is the enterprise that wishes a response. So, for the situation to have any meaning at all, the enterprise is UNABLE to recieve thier attempt, no matter the failure or reason
In your example you made and attempt at communication. A failed attempt to communicate. You have not attempted a response because a response is a reaction. What OTHER word that is not a generalization or specificity of 'unable' will you use to describe a "failed attempt"? Provide me the word Doesnt this demonstrate my point that existence will not allow another seperate characterization other than UNABLE or UNWILLING If you change the word to incapable becase of a failed attempt to communicate it still means Unable
If you received a message from outer space and made a 'scientifiky' attempt at replying, you would be responding. You are making an attempt to communicate. You are willing and able to respond. If they did not detect your response, you have failed at communication. You have responded. You failed to communicate. Beautiful example, so I am UNABLE to accomplish my goal or task. Your very examples deomonstrate that you are resisting a principle that is woven into the fabric of existence itself. If my goal is to hit three hundred home runs in one year and Im able and willing to attempt it by swinging a bat at a passing ball, yet I fail misrably, I am UNABLE to accomplish what I set out to do
If they do not hear you, you have completed the task of responding. You have failed to communicate. The goal Butterfly is to have them respond. Even if the subject doesnt know that I am attempting a communication, it renders the situation as incapable and therefore Unable from the querest standpoint, the enterprise. Any excuse that can be offered, or definition of words will not change that outcome. It will only be a reconstruction of or combination of those two words If you think I am wrong please present another word that would describe the failed attempt on either side that would be different entirely from that of UNABLE or UNWILLING It is true that the words UNABLE and UNWILLING are simply terms, but they accurately describe the reality of existence in this connection
Communicating with aliens and responding to aliens are two different tasks. The task in your example is response. Not communication Your mencing words which will come up to incapable, therefore Unable. Incapable is just another way to say unable. The task in my example is capability overall, not the specificity of response or communication, those are qualifiers that will allow the goal to be accomplised, completed or rendered a failure
Correct. The other ship has failed to communicate. This does not mean they have not responded. This does not mean they are unwilling or unable to respond. Were they (the aliens) able or unable to accomplish thier task, even if they failed to communicate and even if they made an attempt Was the enterprise able or unable to reach the other ship, even if the other ship was unaware of any communication Wouldnt the other ship be incapable, unaware and therefore unable to respond, even if they didnt know they needed to respond? Dont you see how no situation and no terms will change that reality
The only thing you have indicated and demonstrated is your inability to use the English language correctly. Get it? The english language or whatever language is useful in helping to describe reality, but it is reality that dictates the nature of those terms, not vis versa If you wanted to call present terms by different names and ascribe certain definitions to those terms, they had better conform to reality At present Unable and Unwilling accurately describe realty, at any attempts at nearly all endeavors. There are others terms that specify those general concepts, like 'incapable', but the two general terms will always apply and cannot be added to. Its all reality will allow 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 AdminPD, : Warning
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD Reply back with which ones you think are an example of a responce and which ones you think are communication. Im more than happy to respond to any questions or scenarios that you would like to put forward. However, i noticed you totally disregarded my questions
Lets see if you can tell the differnce between these two words. Communicate and respond. Sure i can, but these are only specifications of a much larger subject. Capability, incapability, unable, able and Willing and Unwilling are the greater points that are under consideration Communication and response and whether that actually takes place, depends on the situation/s that I have now provided to you on numerous occasions In a broader spectrum and more general sense of the word/s, communication and response can only fall into one of two, or a combination of the two categories, Able and Willing
Situation one - person A walks up to Person B and says 'hello', person B says 'hello' back. Person B was Able and willing. Can you give me another word that is not describe by these two words that describe that action?
Situation two - person A walks past person B wearing a shirt with a nazi swastika on it. Person B flips the bird to person A's back as he walks away. He was able and willing to respond to an insignia, because he was not responding to the person and the person was not seeking his response. therefore he was able and willing to respond to the person, but the person was not seeking his response, so he was unable to respons to the person. Communication and response are not the samething as Willing and Able. They are what determine if able and willing took place Can you give me another word that is not describe by these two words that describe that action?
Situation three - Person A walks up to person B and says hello. Person B is mute and signs 'I cant speak' to person A. If person A can understand sign language, then B was ABLE and Wiiling to respond and the response was succesful. If Person A cannot understand sign language, then B was UNABLE to respond to A, because he did not understand his reply, he was therefore unable to communicate his message. Can you give me another word that is not describe by these two words, that describe that action? Able or Willing
Situation four - Person A walks up to person B from a distance and yells 'hello', Person B has their iPod in and does not hear person A. Person B continues walking without any reaction. Person A was UNABLE to communicate with person B, because he did not hear him and that was his goal
Can you give me another word that is not describe by these two words, that describe that action? Able or Willing I played your game, now play mine. Provde me with another word that is different than able or willing.
If you answer those questions it will very simply illustrate my point. I answered your questions and all it demonstrates is that you have taken a position, the likes of which there is no resolution, other than to say you are wrong Your trying to resist and ignore a principle that is woven into the very fabric of existence. There can be no other category other than able or willing anymore than there can be only one of only two possible explanations for existence itself Dawn Bertot "And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. " Paul 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. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Reply back with which ones you think are an example of a responce and which ones you think are communication. Person B is the target. Here is one more example for you. Lets say someone is trying to get ahold of me on my cell phone, I dont hear the call. They made an attempt, they were able to call, they were willing, they did, but were they Able to contact me, before leaving a message, NO they were unable, no matter thier attempts What Mr Spock, Lenord Nemoy, or the writer did was state a premise, the likes of which are irrefutable and irresistible in its conclusion. Is conclusive and absolute There are no other possibilites or areas where that situation could be considered. Existence sets the boundaries Dawn Bertot
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
This is a perfect example of the error you are making. How is it possible that with the definitions already supplied to you, you cannot apply them correctly. Because you still have not provided me with another word, besides Willing and Able, Unable and Unwilling, that would apply to any scenario, you have provided In each of your scenerios the person was either able or unable to respond, they were willing or unwilling to respond, correct. If I am wrong provide another word that would be different than those two Show me that word, provide me with that word. That is your only task at hand
This is incorrect. This means you are either ignoring or not understanding the definitions of the words respond and communicate. I cant imagine how you have managed to do this because I have supplied the definitions in the post. You are either being willfully ignorant or you cannot understand the definitions. You ignored my argument You still have not responded to my argument where I have shown you, that Communicate and respond are only specifications and sub-points to Able and Willing, they are what make Able and Willing possible. They are not something seperate from Able and Willing Hence Mr Spocks statement, "Captain, there are only two logical possibilites, they are Unable to respond, they are Unwilling to respond" stands as an irresistible conclusion remember, it is irrevelvant from whos perspective you are viewing the situation, from someones perspective they were either, Able or Unable, Willing or Unwilling Thats all there is and all existence will allow: Unless you are prepared to show me another word that is not alrady a part of Able and Wiiling, or not a combination of those two concepts
First mistake - Someone trying to call you is not a response. A responce is a reaction. The caller is not reaction to anything. They are not responding to anything. To fix your first mistake, lets say you called them, they missed the call, you left a voice message and they are now responding to that voice message. If they got ahold of you when they responded to your message, then they were ABLE to get ahold of you. If they responded to the message and did not get ahold of you they were UNABLE to get ahold of you If you believe you got ahold of them when you left the message, then from your perspective you were Able When you first called them and they missed the call, were you Able or Unable to get ahold of them? When they responded to your message, were able or unable to get ahold of them It does not matter the words you use they will not be different than or involve anything other than, Able, Unable, Willing or Unwilling Your scenerios are an exiercise in futility to ignore such simple principle woven in the very fabric of existence. Keep trying though its fun to watch
Woven into the fabric of existence? What the fuck are you talking about? You provided a Star Trek example and I was responding to that. Is Star Trek now "woven into the fabric of existence"? What prinicple are you talking about? You really are a novice at debate arent you? Look harder and think deeper At the end of each of your scenarios, it will only involve one of those two terms
Person A was willing and able to respond. The task of responding has been completed. Just because person B did not understand the response does not mean tht the response was not given or received. It was not understood which means that communication has failed. Then they were Unable to communicate thier intended message, as that was thier purpose. As I told you before, Failed communication falls under Unable Dawn Bertot
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD 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. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
You are learning nothing by debating with me (because you either cannot or will not learn). Interesting, so I am unable or unwilling, to learn, correct. Can you give me another category, that is neither of these two butterfly, instead of longwinded posts, simply put in one liners where you think my mistake is Ask specific question in oneliners, if you think I am missing some point Dawn Bertot
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 437 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2011 9:34 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 438 of 468 (631968)
09-04-2011 10:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 437 by RAZD
09-04-2011 9:34 PM
|
|
Re: willing not[willing] able and not[able]
Enjoy. I believe I will enjoy it as soon as you dumb it down and put it in simplier terms. Is it possible to put this in simple english, then perhaps I can see it alittle clearer Dawn Bertot
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 437 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2011 9:34 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 439 of 468 (632125)
09-05-2011 8:20 PM
|
|
|
RAZD writes Your question is what would this {Z} position\dimension be, yes? Again, the {Z} position could be anything orthogonal to "willing" and "able", including the use of a coin toss. Enjoy. To admin, would you allow RAZD the time to explain in simple terms what his meaning are here My interest is to see if he is suggesting that there is actuall another word or area where there is something other than, Willing, Un willing, Able or Unable Thanks for your consideration Dawn Bertot
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 440 by AdminPD, posted 09-05-2011 8:34 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2