Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
31 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,852 Year: 18,888/19,786 Month: 1,308/1,705 Week: 114/446 Day: 10/104 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 196 of 211 (635031)
09-25-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Dawn Bertot
09-25-2011 10:05 PM


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

Hot dogs with everything but catsup please (salsa instead - yum)

Starting to get it?

That you're being dishonest and moving the goalposts? ... got that long ago . . .

Actor
ableness
+
willingness
+
?
action or
inaction

All the impacting aspects need to line up in the boxes to be involved.

For the sunflower ? = programing

Sunflower
ableness
+
willingness
+
program
action or
inaction

For the OCD person ? = compulsive behavior

OCD
ableness
+
willingness
+
compulsion
action or
inaction

OCD person without external stimulus is not a different person than OCD person with external stimulus - ableness and willingness don't change - what changes is external to the person, just as for the sunflower, and the behavior with external stimulus is similar to that of the sunflower: compulsive action or inaction

Enjoy

Edited by Zen Deist, : finished

Edited by Zen Deist, : No reason given.

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 195 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 10:05 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 10:50 PM RAZD has responded

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


(1)
Message 197 of 211 (635032)
09-25-2011 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by RAZD
09-25-2011 10:26 PM


Re: The sunflower test - again now with flower power added!!!!
That you're being dishonest and moving the goalposts? ... got that long ago .

Please explain in simple terms, without a disortation, how and why you think I am moving the goalposts. My position that able and willing apply to all reality and its laws has not moved

Perhaps you have misunderstood my original intention

OCD person without external stimulus is not a different person than OCD person with external stimulus - ableness and willingness don't change - what changes is external to the person,

Again nonsense, you contrasted the person with OCD with a "Normal person", then stated he is unable to act in a certain way

are you now saying that able or unable doesnt apply to the situation you provided

For "compulsive behavior" to make any sense you have to have something to compare it with, correct? Otherwise how would you know its not normal?

Maybe you could clarify your point here in a simpler manner

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 196 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 10:26 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 9:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 198 of 211 (635872)
10-02-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2011 12:21 AM


1) Moving Goalposts...
Hi Dawn Bertot,

I'm going to take a break from the Scientific Knowledge thread to pick this up again.

There will be three replies to this post for clarity and to enable followup on the different sub-threads involved. This is about the goalposts.

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

Going back to my flow diagram:

(from Message 118):

quote:
Here is my simplified graphic, let's see if this helps:

Notes:

  1. If the ship is a high security research vessel that requires proper security codes and procedures to be met before communication is permitted between the crew and any external source, then the ship could have blocked the incoming transmission from the crew.
  2. This is the original "unable to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unable, this is where it shows up.
  3. This is the original "unwilling to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unwilling, this is where it shows up.
  4. This is the issue of time, both the time alloted by the "Spock" character before he reaches his conclusions, AND the time taken by the crew of the second vessel to respond, whether the time taken is due to apathy\ambivalence in making a decision or whether they are busy on something they feel is necessary for their survival and that has a higher priority than making a response at that time. Making a response could be next on their list of prioritized tasks that they are able and willing to tackle in the time they have.
  5. This is the "sunflower" issue, whether or not there is a program that decides whether or not the response is allowed (ie sent - see note 1), irrespective of the ableness and willingness of the crew to make a response.
  6. This is the issue built into the programing: if the proper input is received communication to and from the vessel is allowed, however if the proper input is not received communication is blocked. Note that this is dependent on the Enterprise knowing and using the proper procedures and not on the ableness or willingness of the crew. The crew can be fully cognizant of the security requirements, completely able to respond if they are met and fully willing to respond if they are met.
  7. This is NOT part of the response from the second vessel, but it IS part of the issue of why the Enterprise has not detected a response from the vessel.

Note in particular that all the items that are NOT in the control of the crew do NOT affect their ableness or willingness to respond. Remember that the original comment by the "Spock" character was that not response was detected because of either one of two reasons:

  1. the CREW was unable to respond
    OR
  2. the Crew was unwilling to respond.]

As we can easily see from this flow chart there are several other possibilities that were not considered.

QED


... but My original implication was that it applies to reality. Remember me saying at one point forget about the scenario ...
... because of an outside influence, Kahn. IOWs something other than thier inability

OR their unwillingness. Excellent.

You have now said, in essence, that either [box 1] or [box 7] is involved: the crew did not receive or did not send a response because of "an outside influence" that put a block on communication.

You are now no longer talking about the crew being able or willing, you have moved the goalposts to be amorphously external to the crew and are now talking about additional factors involved where you can make up conditions showing (to you) either [able]ness or [willing]ness factors.

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

(shhTHUCKt) (boom) (boom) ... once again, the sound of ...


... goal posts being uprooted and moved to a more "convenient" location for your game.

Where would you get the nusty idea that unable only refers to the actor and the things at his disposal.

From the definitions. If someone is able to lift a 200 lb weight, that doesn't mean that either you or I are necessarily able or unable to do so. The [able]ness that can be observed, determined, and used to predict behavior is necessarily related to the actor and the action.

If you cannot predict behavior from your increasingly externalized [able]nesses and [willing]nesses, then they are increasingly irrelevant to the question of whether or not a certain task gets accomplished.

Moving the goalposts does not improve your claim.

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 188 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 12:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 199 of 211 (635877)
10-02-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2011 12:21 AM


2) dishonesty, intentional or unintentional
Hi Dawn Bertot, this is the second reply issue

... but My original implication was that it applies to reality. Remember me saying at one point forget about the scenario ...
... because of an outside influence, Kahn. IOWs something other than thier inability

Message 152: I think you are confusing intellectual choices with simply reality. A tree is no longer able to stand upright and falls over when conditions of decay are sufficient enough to cause it to fall down. Then it is no longer able to complete THAT PART of its function, standing upright

The sunflower is "unable" to make the sun rise and "unable" to keep clouds from blocking the sun, not because it fails to acquire the [able]ness required, but because it is impossible for it to have the [able]ness required to control those things.

If Little Tommie tells his teacher, "Sorry, I was willing and able to do my homework, but I was unable to control the Universe, and that is why my homework did not get done," I just have a small feeling that this would not wash with the teacher.

If this seems unreasonable to you, the reason is simple. Going back to the definitions:

Stage 2: definitions: The dictionaries defines "able" to be:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/able
quote:
adjective
1. having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications; qualified: able to lift a two-hundred-pound weight; able to write music; able to travel widely; able to vote.

and

- adj
1. ( postpositive ) having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity, etc, to do something: able to swim

and

Function: adjective
1 : possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective < able to perform under the contract>


How do you define "able"?

You replied (Message 30, quoting the above definition in full): "I am fine with these definitions,"

... I point out to you that it is impossible for the tree to control the conditions that cause decay, impossible for the sunflower to control the sun and the weather, and impossible for Little Tommie to control the universe, and this means it is impossible to meet the [able]ness definitions to have such control over nature\reality.

In addition, being un[able] to control nature\reality, does not mean that there is no [able]ness to let nature\reality run it's course.

It is possible to invent all kinds of "able" and "unable" scenarios to suit your claim - the question is whether they can really be honestly applied. To be applicable to any task, they must have predictive ability to ascertain whether a task in question will be completed or not.

The ability of Little Tommie to tie his shoes does not predict whether or not he will answer the phone.

The inability of Little Tommie to control the universe also does not predict whether or not he will answer the phone.

Thus, [able]ness to control nature\reality, either to make it do (or not do) something or to let it do something, has no predictive capacity to tell if a given task will be completed or not: you will always be un[able] to control nature\reality and you will simultaneously always be [able] to let nature\reality to take it's course.

Again, as I said in Message 125:

quote:
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.


You replied in Message 152: "Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonest"

This is what you are now doing. It is still dishonest, whether it is intentional on your part or not is irrelevant. I give you the benefit of the doubt, and thus I am pointing out that your position is inconsistent with an honest use of the terms able and willing.

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 188 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 12:21 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-03-2011 9:43 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 200 of 211 (635880)
10-02-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2011 12:21 AM


3) zero point on the [able]ness axis ...
Hi again Dawn Bertot, this is the third reply issue

Message 152: I think you are confusing intellectual choices with simply reality. A tree is no longer able to stand upright and falls over when conditions of decay are sufficient enough to cause it to fall down. Then it is no longer able to complete THAT PART of its function, standing upright

Correction: as noted in the previous message, it is impossible for the tree to ever control nature\reality, and rather than being un[able] to control nature\reality (while simultaneously [able] to allow nature\reality to follow it's course, there is no +/-[able]ness possible and thus it does not apply here.

There is no way you can predict the behavior of the tree from these simultaneously coexisting [able]ities. If you cannot predict the behavior, then whether or not some [able]ness you invent to be involved is irrelevant to the question of task completion.

The tree will always be un[able] to control nature\reality AND it will simultaneously always be [able] to let nature\reality to take it's course.

The only way that these contradictions can be resolved is for the [able]ness to ≡ zero, that elusive place on the [able]ness axis where there is no +[able]ness and no -[able]ness ... just zero[able]ness.

You have previously agreed that there is a 'zero point' on the [willing]ness scale, as it is impossible for the sunflowers (and trees) to be either willing or unwilling.

Thank you for helping me find the 'zero point' on the [able]ness axis to match the one we have on the [willing]ness axis:

Possibilities + [Willing]ness 0 [Willing]ness - [Willing]ness
+ [Able]ness Able and Willing Able Able and Unwilling
0 [Able]ness Willing (indeterminate) Unwilling
- [Able]ness Unable and Willing Unable Unable and Unwilling

Thus we have

  • three (3) conditions where we can predict that the task is likely to be completed due to positive ableness and positive willingness, (green)
  • five (5) conditions where we can predict that the task is likely to be not completed due to negative ableness or negative willingness, ... and ...
  • one (1) case where the result is indeterminate: we cannot predict whether the task will be completed or not from the ableness and willingness criteria.

Therefore they are not, cannot be, universally applicable criteria. QED. fin.

If you think any remaining points in Message 188 need to be addressed then please repeat them: I'm trying to reduce our workload here by focusing on critical issues and elements.

Enjoy.

Edited by Zen Deist, : subtitle

Edited by Zen Deist, : table colors - palegreen instead of green and tomato instead of red


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 188 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 12:21 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-02-2011 7:15 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 209 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-03-2011 10:07 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 201 of 211 (635881)
10-02-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2011 1:08 AM


Re: the other words . . . chaos rules
Hi Dawn Bertot, sorry I don't agree.

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

Simple, when I DO use a coin toss and DON'T attempt to control it in any way, and THEN use the random result. In those conditions it is necessarily unpredictable and therefore can result in chaos.

All A is B does not prove that all B is A:

If you are able to control the coin toss that puts you in the A circle ...

If I am able to cause the coin toss to be random that puts me in the B circle outside the A circle.

My [able]ness and [willing]ness then become relatively irrelevant to whether the coin toss comes up heads (do the task) or tails (don't do the task) because they can no longer predict a positive outcome (although they will continue to predict a negative outcome).

If [able]ness and [willing]ness cannot accurately predict the outcome then they are not universally applicable criteria that determine whether or not a task is completed. QED. fin.

Again, if you think there are other points you have made in Message 189 that I have not answered, feel free to repeat them if you think it they counter this.

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 189 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 1:08 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 202 of 211 (635883)
10-02-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2011 9:13 AM


Re: several terms already provided - still no refutation
Hi Bertot,

... 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.

Now THAT is silly. Of course you are able to fall off a building even when you don't.

When I was in high school I fell off the Empire State Building in New York(1). I was even WILLING to do so, and would be willing to repeat this experience on other buildings.

Staying away from all buildings would not mean you are unable to fall off a building.

It's like riding a bicycle ...

... which, btw, I did this morning, riding in to town for a cup a joe at the local coffee depot. I did not get rained on, either while going or returning. I parked the bike outside and came in to check on EvC, and while I was writing my first response to you today, it started raining, and I ran out to put the bike in the shed. I did not ride the bike in the rain, but NOT because I am unwilling to ride in the rain, but because it was simpler to walk it 10 steps into the shed. My ability to ride the bike was unaffected by my not riding it.

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

Of course theoretical ability cannot be properly judged until you have actually demonstrated it.

But your ability to fall off a building is not theoretical -- it happens all the time, with frequently harmful results (not from the falling but from the end when the falling stops ... )

Nor is my ability to ride my bike theoretical - I've demonstrated that ability to the extent of having well over 9000 miles on my bikes (combined, but only 9091 are actually documented).

Nor is the ability of this man to fly theoretical:

Once done it is, of course, no longer theoretical.

The ability of the sunflower to respond to the {sun\sunlamp} by turning is not lost when the lights are OFF (even though nobodies home). The ability of the sunflower to not respond to the {sun\sunlamp} by NOT turning is not lost when the lights are ON.

Nor can the sunflower control the sun or the weather or the lamp to contol when to turn and when to not turn.

Enjoy.


Notes:

(1) - I intentionally tripped myself when standing on the first step and fell onto the pavement with mild abrasions that were worth the effort ...


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 190 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 9:13 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-03-2011 10:25 PM RAZD has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 203 of 211 (635901)
10-02-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
10-02-2011 3:47 PM


Re: zero point on the [able]ness axis ...
I'm trying to reduce our workload here by focusing on critical issues and elements.

Really, so what would your posts on this topic look like if you WERENT trying to reduce the work load? ha ha

Ill try and get to these somewhat burdesom posts as quickly as possible. It might take a while there Rand-Macnally

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 3:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 8:48 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 204 of 211 (635905)
10-02-2011 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dawn Bertot
09-25-2011 9:47 PM


The sunflower test - once more, when it comes around on the guitar, with feeling ...
Hi Dawn Bertot,

just the high points for now ...

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

And this is you being dishonest about how the [able]ness and [willing]ness apply to the task.

No, this "unable to act in a normal fashion" is a red herring, as how the OCD behaves is not necessarily normal for you or I, but it is normal for them. I should probably have used words less pejorative to describe this: in addition to common behavior similar to you or I, the OCD person has behavior that is compelled/compulsive/driven where their ableness and willingness are no longer factors in predicting their behavior.

The OCD person can be able to accomplish tasks in their usual manner, and they can be willing to accomplish tasks in their usual manner, but these are not sufficient to predict the behavior of the OCD person. Such a person has strongly compelled behavior that also affect their completion of tasks and that ALSO needs to be incorporated into any prediction paradigm regarding completion of tasks.

Let me simplify this for you (if I can):

Premise 1: IF [able]ness affects the completion of a specific task AND
Premise 2: IF [willing]ness affects the completion of a same specific task
Conclusion A: THEN [able]ness and [willing]ness can be used to predict some possibilities regarding completion of the specific task.

(1) - Do you AGREE with Conclusion A?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...

Premise 3: IF [able]ness and[willing]ness are the ONLY factors that affect the completion of a specific task,
Conclusion B: THEN [able]ness and [willing]ness will predict ALL possibilities regarding completion of the specific task:

  1. able and willing -- task WILL be completed.
  2. able but unwilling -- task will NOT be completed.
  3. unable but willing -- task will NOT be completed.
  4. unable and unwilling -- task will NOT be completed.

(2) - Do you AGREE with Conclusion B?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...

The Dawn Bertot Hypothesis: [able]ness and [willing]ness are sufficient to predict ALL possibilities regarding completion of the specific task.

(3) - Do you AGREE that this is your hypothesis?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...

To become a scientific theory the hypothesis must be tested and it must have a falsification test.

The falsification test would be any instance where [able]ness and [willing]ness are NOT sufficient to predict ALL possibilities regarding completion of the specific task.

ie -- IF [able]ness and [willing]ness are known and the behavior predicted by them does NOT occur, THEN the hypothesis is falsified.

(4) - Do you AGREE with this falsification test?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...

Now we come to the test examples to see how the hypothesis holds up:

  1. the sunflower:
    Test if [able]ness and [willing]ness are sufficient to predict the behavior of a sunflower when light is on, when light is on and moved, when light is off, and when light is off and moved.
    • preconditions:
      1. sunflower is able to turn to face the sunlamp
      2. sunflower is able to detect if sunlight present
      3. willingness does not apply (there is nothing to be willing)

    • test #1 - with lamp on
      1. sunflower able to turn to face the sunlamp,
      2. sunflower able to detect sunlight
      3. sunflower turns to face the sunlamp
      4. result positive: ability predicts behavior.

    • test #2 - with lamp on, moved to new location
      1. sunflower able to turn to face the sunlamp,
      2. sunflower able to detect sunlight
      3. sunflower turns to face the new location
      4. result positive: ability predicts behavior.

    • test #3 - with lamp off
      1. sunflower able to turn to face the sunlamp,
      2. sunflower able to detect sunlight
      3. sunflower does not move, but already facing sunlamp
      4. result inconclusive: ability not tested.

    • test #4 - with lamp off, moved to new location
      1. sunflower able to turn to face the sunlamp,
      2. sunflower able to detect sunlight
      3. sunflower does NOT turn to face the sunlamp
      4. result negative: ability does NOT predict behavior.

    • Result: [able]ness unable to predict behavior in test #4 (negative result).

  2. a person with OCD:
    Test if [able]ness and [willing]ness are sufficient to predict the behavior of a person with OCD (Pw/OCD) with lifting a 200 lb weight when the lifting bar is clean and when the lifting bar is dirty.
    • preconditions:
      1. Pw/OCD is able to lift a 200 lb weight
      2. Ps/OCD may be willing to lift a 200 lb weight
      3. Ps/OCD may be UNwilling to lift a 200 lb weight
      4. Psw?OCD is compulsive hand washer if objects touched are dirty

    • test #1 - handlebar of 200 lb weight is clean
      1. Pw/OCD is able to lift the 200 lb weight
      2. Ps/OCD willing to lift the 200 lb weight
      3. Ps/OCD does lift the 200 lb weight
      4. result positive: ability and willingness predict behavior.

    • test #2 - handlebar of 200 is clean
      1. Pw/OCD is able to lift the 200 lb weight
      2. Ps/OCD UNwilling to lift the 200 lb weight
      3. Ps/OCD does NOT lift the 200 lb weight
      4. result positive: ability and willingness predict behavior.

    • test #3 - handlebar of 200 is dirty
      1. Pw/OCD is able to lift the 200 lb weight
      2. Ps/OCD willing to lift the 200 lb weight
      3. Ps/OCD does NOT lift the 200 lb weight but washes hands instead
      4. result negative: ability and willingness do NOT predict behavior.

    • test #4 - handlebar of 200 is dirty
      1. Pw/OCD is able to lift the 200 lb weight
      2. Ps/OCD UNwilling to lift the 200 lb weight
      3. Ps/OCD does NOT lift the 200 lb weight but washes hands instead
      4. result inconclusive: ability and willingness not tested.

    • Result: [willing]ness unable to predict behavior in test #3 (negative result).

    Analysis: hypothesis was tested by two independent test cases, cases that test each of the two different aspects of the Dawn Bertot Hypothesis:
    • Test Case (A) removes [willing]ness from consideration, and then tests variation in [able]ness to explain behavior.
    • Test Case (B) holds [able]ness constant and positive,
      1. so that it cannot prevent completion of the task, and
      2. so that it cannot be argued that [able]ness and [willing]ness are not tested together, and
      3. then tests variation in [willing]ness to explain behavior.

    • the result was that the hypothesis was falsified in both cases.
    • CONCLUSIONS:
      1. [able]ness alone is NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior when [willing]ness is neutralized.
      2. [willing]ness alone is NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior when [able]ness is neutralized.
      3. [able]ness and [willing]ness together are NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior.

      The hypothesis is falsified, and should be discarded.

(5) - Do you AGREE that the hypothesis is falsified?
YES ... or
NO ... and
if no, please explain why ...

I look forward to your response.

Again, if you think there are other points you have made in Message 194 that I have not answered, and that you feel are pertinent, please feel free to repeat them, especially if you think it they counter this.

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 194 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 9:47 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-03-2011 9:30 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 211 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-04-2011 9:20 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 205 of 211 (635906)
10-02-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dawn Bertot
10-02-2011 7:15 PM


Re: zero point on the [able]ness axis ...
Hi Dawn Bertot,

Really, so what would your posts on this topic look like if you WERENT trying to reduce the work load? ha ha

You really really really do not want to know ....

But please, if I have missed something critical from the posts I've replied to, feel free to bring them up again. There was too much to reply to every point, and I am less interested in some points when the logic shows your concept is falsified ... imho.

Enjoy.

Edited by Zen Deist, : r


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 203 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-02-2011 7:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 206 of 211 (635907)
10-02-2011 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Dawn Bertot
09-25-2011 10:50 PM


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

Please explain in simple terms, without a disortation, how and why you think I am moving the goalposts. My position that able and willing apply to all reality and its laws has not moved

See 1) Moving Goalposts...

Again nonsense, you contrasted the person with OCD with a "Normal person", then stated he is unable to act in a certain way

are you now saying that able or unable doesnt apply to the situation you provided

For "compulsive behavior" to make any sense you have to have something to compare it with, correct? Otherwise how would you know its not normal?

Maybe you could clarify your point here in a simpler manner

Yes that was insensitive of me to describe OCD like that. See The sunflower test - once more, when it comes around on the guitar, with feeling ..., where I have corrected this, as well as expanded on how it affects the results.

Again, feel free to repeat anythings you think I may have glossed over in cutting down my replies to only tediously long lengths (as opposed to terminally long)

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 197 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 10:50 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

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


Message 207 of 211 (636075)
10-03-2011 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by RAZD
10-02-2011 8:45 PM


Re: The sunflower test - once more, when it comes around on the guitar, with feeling ...
•CONCLUSIONS:

i.[able]ness alone is NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior when [willing]ness is neutralized.

Correct, but Unableness will explain and describe the behavior. Unless you cna provide another word, different than unable, that means something different than unable or does not include its tenets. What is that word

ii.[willing]ness alone is NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior when [able]ness is neutralized.

Correct but unableness will explain the behavior

iii.[able]ness and [willing]ness together are NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior.

Correct but unableness will explain it, if you apply it to something besides the mechanism, correct or did I miss something

Are you still insisting you dont need another word

The hypothesis is falsified, and should be discarded.

It would be if you werent just arguning with yourself and your false presuppositions

Listen ZD, just explain in short sentences and in simple terms what you think I am missing

its my belief you give these elaborate and complicated explanations to distract the reader from the fact that you really do not have an answer to my query.

Prove me wrong with simple language and simple sentences, if you think I am missing something

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 8:45 PM RAZD has not yet responded

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


Message 208 of 211 (636081)
10-03-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by RAZD
10-02-2011 3:30 PM


Re: 2) dishonesty, intentional or unintentional
The sunflower is "unable" to make the sun rise and "unable" to keep clouds from blocking the sun, not because it fails to acquire the [able]ness required, but because it is impossible for it to have the [able]ness required to control those things.

If Little Tommie tells his teacher, "Sorry, I was willing and able to do my homework, but I was unable to control the Universe, and that is why my homework did not get done," I just have a small feeling that this would not wash with the teacher.

If this seems unreasonable to you, the reason is simple. Going back to the definitions:

This is a complete misapplication of how I am representing able and unable. In reality one thing affects another. Reality and its tenets make me able and unable at times to accomplish this or that

if tommy tells his teacher that he could not accomplish his homework because his house burnt down, it does not matter whether he was able to control that or not. It makes him unable to accomplish the task, even if he has has some ability to do it or not internally. Is the light bulb starting to come on

It is possible to invent all kinds of "able" and "unable" scenarios to suit your claim -

Hogwash, reality is what it is, I dont invent skincancer, even if I cant control the sun directly

reality and what takes place each and every second is determined by myself and how reality affects that ability and inability, thus making me able or unable

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied in Message 152: "Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonest"

This is what you are now doing. It is still dishonest, whether it is intentional on your part or not is irrelevant. I give you the benefit of the doubt, and thus I am pointing out that your position is inconsistent with an honest use of the terms able and willing.

You have from the start misrepresented my position on able and unable. I told you early on that reality dictates the use of words, not the other way around

I agreed with those definitions because they were understood to apply to a person accomplishing a task. They are only words and definitions. But as i have pointed out regularly, they dont ACCURATELY reflect reality and how able and unable must be applied

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 3:30 PM RAZD has not yet responded

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


Message 209 of 211 (636086)
10-03-2011 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
10-02-2011 3:47 PM


Re: 3) zero point on the [able]ness axis ...
Thus we have

•three (3) conditions where we can predict that the task is likely to be completed due to positive ableness and positive willingness, (green)

•five (5) conditions where we can predict that the task is likely to be not completed due to negative ableness or negative willingness, ... and ...

•one (1) case where the result is indeterminate: we cannot predict whether the task will be completed or not from the ableness and willingness criteria.
Therefore they are not, cannot be, universally applicable criteria. QED. fin.

This is an elaborate attempt to avoid a simple point. Prediction has nothing to do with whether the tree at some point will no longer be ABLE to stand due to internal and external conditions

its either standing or its not. its either able or not able to stand at some undefinable but real moment in time, irregardless of my predictions or not

The tree will always be un[able] to control nature\reality AND it will simultaneously always be [able] to let nature\reality to take it's course.

The only way that these contradictions can be resolved is for the [able]ness to ≡ zero, that elusive place on the [able]ness axis where there is no +[able]ness and no -[able]ness ... just zero[able]ness.

Shut up (While laughing really hard)

The tree is at a very specific slit second in time, no longer ABLE to complete atleast that part of its function, standing upright because internal and external factors(reality) made it unable to accomplish that task

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 3:47 PM RAZD has not yet responded

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


Message 210 of 211 (636090)
10-03-2011 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by RAZD
10-02-2011 5:05 PM


Re: several terms already provided - still no refutation
The ability of the sunflower to respond to the {sun\sunlamp} by turning is not lost when the lights are OFF (even though nobodies home). The ability of the sunflower to not respond to the {sun\sunlamp} by NOT turning is not lost when the lights are ON.

Nor can the sunflower control the sun or the weather or the lamp to contol when to turn and when to not turn.

Ability without actual application is described as Unable at that moment in reality to perform its intended function. Its not doing what it can do, even if a percieved ability exists, or even if the MECHANICHS exist inside it are still available

In reality ZD, there is only things happening or not happening at any given moment due to and depending on what a specific organisms function entails and how outside external factors are affecting it

percieved abilites without application and actual function are not ACTUALLY happening. Only that which is happening is actually happening. Therefore, it is at any given moment able or unable depending on realities conditions provided to it, to perform its function

Only one of those is happening at any given moment. Light (able), no light (unable)

Percieved abilites without application are not a reality at any given momment, it has to be actually happening to be actual and reality

It can NEVER be Able and Unable in the same moment. its always one or the other. You imaginary scenario where this ability still exists, even when it is unable (no light), is just that IMAGINARY. You cant have both at the sametime and there are only two alternatives

the only reality is Able or Unable at any given mila-second

Is the light bulb starting to shine?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 5:05 PM RAZD 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