Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
38 online now:
dwise1, Faith, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (6 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,959 Year: 18,995/19,786 Month: 1,415/1,705 Week: 221/446 Day: 19/98 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
Panda
Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 421 of 468 (631562)
09-01-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Dawn Bertot
09-01-2011 6:54 PM


Re: Being dishonest
Dawn Bertot writes:

Really Straggler, lets see this list, with the confessionals on the ocean of people that have converted.


Since Chuck77 didn't provide those things, there is no requirement for Straggler to.

You could always take up the challenge on behalf of Chuck77 and produce the "confessionals on the ocean of people that have converted" and "the visual evidence" that supports Chuck77's claim?
I doubt you will though.

Evidence is a one-way street with you.
You always demand evidence from others but refuse to provide any yourself.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-01-2011 6:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4663
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 422 of 468 (631580)
09-01-2011 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Dawn Bertot
09-01-2011 6:54 PM


Re: Being dishonest
Really Straggler, lets see this list, with the confessionals on the ocean of people that have converted.

Did you not open and look at the evidence provided by the site? Straggler did provided the site link which provides the list right in his message. You did see the link didn't you? Right there in his message?

The link is an islamic site and, just like the christian site previous, leaves a lot to be desired as far as efficacy goes. Both sites slant their evidence to their advantage making use of hyperbolic descriptions in their presentations.

In other words they both exaggerate wildly.

But that is the point here, isn't it. For every list you can produce they can also produce. For every name you can list they can list one as well. For every convert you crow about they can crow along with you for theirs.

Ultimately, it all means nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-01-2011 6:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2712 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 423 of 468 (631596)
09-01-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by Dawn Bertot
09-01-2011 8:39 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Dawn Bertot,

It is an interesting conversation simply because, if for nothing else it demonstrates that you believe you cannot be wrong in any circumstance

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.

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

This proves my point. You do not know what the word communicate means.

Look at this sentence closely -

quote:
I COMMUNICATE but no one recieves the message.

Now, here is the definition of communicate -

Communicate - To have an interchange, as of ideas.
Communicate - To express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood.

Here is the definition of response-

response - the act of responding; reply or reaction

Can you see where you are going wrong?

Communication requires both parties to be aware and able to understand the interchange of information

responding does not require the second party to be aware of or able to understand the information

In your example, you have responded but you have not communicated.

I am UNABLE to accomplish my task, irregardless of communication, response or anyother term you wish to throw at it

You are unable to communicate.

Irregardless is not a word.

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.

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.

my comment - I was willing and able to respond

your reply - But UNABLE to accomplish your task.

My task was to respond. I responded. Task completed. I was willing and able to respond. I failed at communication.

The task is response. Task completed. The task was NOT communication.

Here is your example -

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."

The task in question is response. not communicate

here are my other options again -

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.

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.

The task is response. Not communication.

These two words are irrelevant when the the over all purpose or task is taken into cosideration

They are not irrelevant. They mean two entirely different things. The task is response. Not communication.

as I have now demonstrated both by argument and example.

No you have not. You have shown that you do not understand the difference between communicate and respond.

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.

Communicating with aliens and responding to aliens are two different tasks. The task in your example is response. Not communication. If they do not hear you, you have completed the task of responding. You have failed to communicate.

This is the context of Mr Spocks statement. The other ship is unable to accomplish reaching the enterprise

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.

It is irrelevant when the overall purpose or goal is taken into consideration, as you now see, by what I have indicated and demonstrated

It is not irrelevant. You provided an example. The task in that example was response. You seem unwilling or unable to tell the difference between the task of responding and the task of communicating.

The only thing you have indicated and demonstrated is your inability to use the English language correctly.

Get it?

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-01-2011 8:39 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-02-2011 1:27 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 424 of 468 (631617)
09-02-2011 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Butterflytyrant
09-01-2011 9:31 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-01-2011 9:31 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-02-2011 7:17 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 425 of 468 (631628)
09-02-2011 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Straggler
09-01-2011 11:13 AM


subjective evidence overload
Straggler writes:

Have you tried just doing the obvious thing of typing something like 'christian convert Islam' into Google?

I did this and got the following sort of thing: Islamic Converts

I know! Isn't it great. Talk about overload of subjective evidence. Although there are MANY more muslims converting to christianity than the other way around I think it says something regardless don't you?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2011 11:13 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2011 4:52 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 442 by Straggler, posted 09-06-2011 2:11 PM Chuck77 has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 586 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 426 of 468 (631630)
09-02-2011 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by Chuck77
09-02-2011 4:26 AM


Re: subjective evidence overload
Chuck77 writes:

I know! Isn't it great. Talk about overload of subjective evidence. Although there are MANY more muslims converting to christianity than the other way around I think it says something regardless don't you?


Really? Got any evidence to back up that statement? Not that it matters, those are just people being misled by satan, or so the muslim down the street tells me.

Edited by Huntard, : Did quote wrong, had hangover


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Chuck77, posted 09-02-2011 4:26 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Chuck77, posted 09-02-2011 5:35 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 427 of 468 (631633)
09-02-2011 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Huntard
09-02-2011 4:52 AM


Re: subjective evidence overload
Huntard writes:

those are just people being misled by satan,

Satan is a SN being is he not?

Really? Got any evidence to back up that statement?

Yes, I provided the links and so did a few other members. Did you look at them? Some of the people who converted are listed by name.

I realize subjective evidence is well, subjective or at best an opinion based on experience. I realize that saying " I sense it's going to snow today" is not subjective evidence BUT I can sense a drop in temp, clouds rolling in, that certain "smell" in the air before it snows etc etc....So yes, to me it's subjective and worth something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2011 4:52 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2712 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 428 of 468 (631641)
09-02-2011 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Dawn Bertot
09-02-2011 1:27 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Dawn,

You just dont get it.

This will be my last attempt to explain this very, very simple error you are making.

I can see what you are saying. I can also see the fucking huge blindingly obvious error you are making.

If I had not encountered you before, I would assume that you are intentionally avoiding the fucking huge obvious error you are making just to be a pain in the arse.

Lets see if you can tell the differnce between these two words.

Communicate and respond.

Communicate - To have an interchange, as of ideas.
Communicate - To express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood.

Respond - the act of responding; reply or reaction

I am going to give you some situations.

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. They are going to either respond or communicate. If in any case you believe that they are unwilling or unable to respond, please outline why you think this is so.

Situation one - person A walks up to Person B and says 'hello', person B says 'hello' back.

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.

Situation three - Person A walks up to person B and says hello. Person B is mute and signs 'I cant speak' to person A.

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.

Situation 4 is a bit of a curveball. It does fit one of the four examples I supplied for possible reactions. Let me know if you think person B was unwilling or unable to respond and why.

If you answer those questions it will very simply illustrate my point.

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning (Obviously wasn't the last attempt)


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-02-2011 1:27 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-03-2011 5:55 PM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 431 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-03-2011 10:55 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2226 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 429 of 468 (631805)
09-03-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Panda
08-31-2011 5:27 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
RE-The biblical flood breaks several of the tests you listed, so - since our discussion is rapidly heading off-topic - I will instead wait for your post in the 'flood' thread.-

So anyhow, I think I've adequately demonstrated in that thread that this statement is not necessarily true and is at least still very debatable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Panda, posted 08-31-2011 5:27 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 430 of 468 (631849)
09-03-2011 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Butterflytyrant
09-02-2011 7:17 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-02-2011 7:17 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-04-2011 2:59 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 431 of 468 (631867)
09-03-2011 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Butterflytyrant
09-02-2011 7:17 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-02-2011 7:17 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-04-2011 3:11 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2712 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 432 of 468 (631879)
09-04-2011 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by Dawn Bertot
09-03-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Dawn Bertot,

You are still making the same error. I believe you are doing intentionally to try to hold onto you original point.

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

I did not disregard them. All of your questions were based on the error you made at the start of your post. Making all of your questions pointless. My reply is trying to correct that error.

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

In case you have forgotten your example, I will provide it again.

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."

my comment - Situation one - person A walks up to Person B and says 'hello', person B says 'hello' back.

your reply - Person B was Able and willing.

Can you give me another word that is not describe by these two words that describe that action?

This is correct. Person B is willing and able to respond to person A.

my comment - 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.

your reply - 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?

This is incorrect. The response of flipping the bird was directed to the person. "Person B flips the bird to person A's back as he walks away." Person B was responding to person A. Person A was willing and able to respond. You have actually said this in your respond. No, look back to the Star trek example you provided. Notice this is an example of willing to respond and able to respond where the target, person B, is unaware of the response. This is one of the examples i gave as an alternate to your suggestion. Willing and able to respond but the target (in your example, the Enterprise) was not aware of the response.

Person B not asking for the response is irrelevant.

Communication and response are not the samething as Willing and Able. They are what determine if able and willing took place

This sentence does not make sense.

Situation three - Person A walks up to person B and says hello. Person B is mute and signs 'I cant speak' to person A.

your reply - 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

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.

If person A can understand sign language, then B was ABLE and Wiiling to respond and the response was succesful.

This is correct. The response being successful means that communication has been acheived.

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.

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.

Here they are again -

quote:
Communicate - To have an interchange, as of ideas.
Communicate - To express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood.

response - the act of responding; reply or reaction


Can you see how these two words have different meanings? If you cannot see the difference between the two meaning there is a language issue (in which case I will continue to help you) or you are mentally deficient (in which case I wont be helping you as i do not have the time or experience to teach the intellectually challenged. I have experience teaching secondary and tertiary students but not special need students).

look at your reply -

If Person A cannot understand sign language, then B was UNABLE to respond to A

look at the definition of response -

response - the act of responding; reply or reaction

Understanding the response in not required for the response to be made. The action of responding has been completed. Person A has responded. 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.

You gave this as your reason why the response task was not performed -

because he did not understand his reply, he was therefore unable to communicate his message.

This is incorrect. The response does not require understanding. Communication requires understanding. Communication failing does not mean that the response was not given. The task of responding was the sign language "I cant speak". This was the response. The response task was successfully performed. Person A was both willing and able to perform the task of responding. Person B not understanding that response does not mean that the response did not occur. Another example to help this along. The most recent reply that you posted to my message was a response. You have responded to my comments. You have completed the task of responding. If I never read your response or was involved in an accident that destroyed my ability to understand your response does not mean that you were not willing and able to respond. You have completed the task of response. Regardless of whether I read or understand it, you have successfully completed the task of response.

Can you give me another word that is not describe by these two words that describe that action?

This sentence does not make sense. What action?

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.

your reply - Person A was UNABLE to communicate with person B, because he did not hear him and that was his goal

Notice how you have used the word communicate in your reply. Communication is not what was in your example. Your example was response. In your example the two options given were : the alien craft was either unwilling or unable to respond. Not unwilling or unable to communicate. The task for person B was to respond. Not communicate. One of the alternate options I supplied was that the craft was unaware or that they needed to respond to anything meaning that they are not unwilling or unable to respond, they dont know that they need to respond to anything. As in the example given, person B is both willing and able to respond. Person B is merely unaware that any response in requested. This means that communication has failed. The goal for person B was not communication. Person B was unaware that anyone was hailing him. He supplied no response because he was not aware that a response was required. This does not mean he was unable to respond.

If you were in exactly the same situation, would you lose the ability to respond because you dont know that someone is hailing you? Do you think that all of a sudden you lost the ability to speak, write, make some sort of hand gesture etc to respond? When I yelled out a message to you did you all of a sudden lose all of your ability to respond? No, of course you didnt. You were both willing and able to respond. You were just unaware that any response was requested.

I played your game, now play mine. Provde me with another word that is different than able or willing.

Willing and able are not the issues. I do think you may be a little confused about what they mean also from some of your answers though. The issue is your understanding of the difference between respond and communicate.

A person can be both willing and able to respond but choose not to do so. This means that they have failed to communicate. A person can be willing and able to respond but they cannot respond in a way that the other person can understand. They are bot willing and able to respond, but unable to communicate. A person can respond to a dog in english. The dog brings them a ball. The person responds by speaking in a monotone voice in english. The response is given. The person was willing and able to respond. The dog does not understand english so communication fails.

Understanding or knowledge of the response is not required for the task of responding to be performed successfully. The task of responding can be completed without any communication occuring.

for example, you asked this question -

Can you give me another word that is not describe by these two words, that describe that action? Able or Willing

I am willing and able to provide this response -

Uwezo wa kutaka na si masuala. Nadhani unaweza kuwa ni kidogo tu juu ya nini maana pia kutoka kwa baadhi ya majibu yako ingawa. suala ni uelewa wako wa tofauti kati ya kukabiliana na kuwasiliana.

I have completed the task of response. Unless you actually speak a central African language, you will not understand that response. It does not mean that a response has not occurred. I was both willing and able to respond. You can tell i was willing and able to repond because you can actually see my response on the screen in front of you. The response actually exists. Do you see the response ^up there^. Can you see that I was willing and able to provide that response. Even though you cannot understand that response, it does not mean that the response no longer exists. The task of responding has been completed. Just because you are unable to understand the response, does not mean that I have become unwilling or unable to provide that response.

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

Using examples in text of different terms is actually a currently used method to educate people in the English language. It is the primary was to teach basic English. What your reply has demonstarted is that you are either having difficulty understanding the definitions of the two words (respond and communicate) or that you are mentally deficient.

Your trying to resist and ignore a principle that is woven into the very fabric of existence.

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?

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

Unwilling and unable are not the issue. Just because a response is not understood does not mean that you are unable or unwilling to provide it. The issue is your misunderstanding (I believe deliberate) of the words response and communicate.

I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in getting dragged into a pointless philosophical debate about existence with you. Like i said, I find philosophical debates boring and ultimately pointless. I think that any philosophical debate with you in particular would quickly become boring and pointless.

Here is another example. Lets say that once you get to the end of this post, you decide not to reply. Does this mean that you are unwilling to reply? Does it mean you are unable to reply? You may be willing to reply, but choose not to. You may be able to reply, but choose not to.

Stop, before you type anything back. Think for a second. If you turn off your comp now and do not send a reply back to me, do you become unwilling? Do you become unable?

here is the definition of willing (including an example from the Bible)

Willing - favourably disposed or inclined; ready : "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41).

here is a definition of able

Having sufficient power or resources to accomplish something

Are you, right now willing to respond? Are you favourable dispose, inclined or ready to respond?

Are you, right now able to respond? Do you have sufficient power or resources to accomplish the task of responding?

If yes, then you are willing and able to respone. Now, if you choose to not reply to this message, it does not change the fact that you are willing and able to respond does it? How about you respond in your native language, this also means that you are willing and able to respond. The fact that i do not understand your response does not mean that your response ceases to exist. Try going outside and yelling your response at a tree. You are (I assume) both willing and able to respond in this fashion. Even though I will not hear this response, and will be totally unaware that the task of reponse has been completed it does not mean that you become unwilling or unable to respond.

That is more than a dozen examples of the use of the word response. If you cant get it from those examples, you cannot be taught. I used these examples on two of my neices. Aged 6 and 9. They are now able to differentiate between response and communicate and have understood the alternate examples I gave to your Star Trek scenario. For this reason I do not doubt my explanations. If a 6 year old can get it, you should be able to as well.

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-03-2011 5:55 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-04-2011 5:17 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2712 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 433 of 468 (631880)
09-04-2011 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by Dawn Bertot
09-03-2011 10:55 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Dawn Bertot.

This example just shows, once again that your grasp of the structure of the English language is poor.

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

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.

Second mistake - If the person did make contact, they have acheived communication. This is not a requirement for a response. Responding and communicating are different words with different meanings. I have supplied the meanings a few times now. How about you read them until you understand them. Of tell me that you dont undertsnad them and I will try to help you.

Third mistake - the task is response. If they are not successfull in making contact, the task hs been completed. They have responded. They are not unable to respond. They have not lost the ability to use the phone. They can still respond. The ability to make a phone call (able) still exists. They are still willing and able to respond. They have failed to communicate because you did not answer your phone. The person has responded to your voice message. You did not hear your phone. This does not mean that the caller was not willing or able to respond. They were willing and able, thats why our phone was ringing. The call is their response. You do not know that the response is being made, but that does not mean that the response did not happen.

Get it?

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

If the writer was trying to state a premise, he did it poorly. As I have provided two alternate possibilities to the original two provided by you. It is possible that you misquoted the original source though. The premise was not irrefutable. I have refuted it. How is it conclusive? What arguement has it resolved? It was also not absolute either as I have provided two alternate options.

There are no other possibilites or areas where that situation could be considered. Existence sets the boundaries

There are two other possibilties. I have supplied them to you. Areas where that situation could be considered? What does that even mean? What other areas are you taking about? Existence sets boundaries on Star Trek references? Since when?

Saying you are right, over and over again in different ways will not actually make you right. In order to be right, you have to provide and opposing arguement that is superior to mine. This is simply a comprehension issue. A good start to your arguement will be to understand the definition of respond and communicate. Once you have acheived this task though, you will realise that you are wrong and the discussion will end.

Is that why you are not actually attempting to understand the words? Is it more satisfying to you to just say you are right? I suppose if you never actually honestly engage in a debate you can never lose (or learn anything). I dont think I could mind fuck myself like that.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-03-2011 10:55 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 434 of 468 (631932)
09-04-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by Butterflytyrant
09-04-2011 2:59 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-04-2011 2:59 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-04-2011 8:18 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2712 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 435 of 468 (631944)
09-04-2011 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Dawn Bertot
09-04-2011 5:17 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Dawn Bertot,

I wont be engaging in any further debate with you.

You are either intentionally ignorant or mentally deficient.

Either way, I am learning nothing by debating with you.

You are learning nothing by debating with me (because you either cannot or will not learn).

Other readers are learning nothing by reading our conversation.

I wont be derailing any more threads having pointless conversations with you.

regards,

BT

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-04-2011 5:17 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-04-2011 8:24 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet 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