Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "Axioms" Of Nature
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 12 of 297 (486432)
10-20-2008 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2008 1:46 PM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Nature
Just wanted to pop in to point something out.
Spock writes:
Sir, there are only two logical possibilites, they are unable to respond, they are unwilling to respond.
While it IS true that those are the only two LOGICAL possibilities, there is a third illogical possibility. They are both willing and capable to respond, yet still don't. Like I said, completely illogical. However, it is a possibility.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2008 1:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 1:31 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 21 of 297 (486461)
10-21-2008 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 1:31 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Nature
Bertot writes:
Huntard
yet still don't.
Which would fall into the category of unwilling, but it was a nice try. Yu cant do it I tried over and over and over, reality wont allow it.
D Bertot
No it wouldn't, I stated they were willing. That it's not a response we can rationalize does not mean it should not be considered. Again, they ARE willing to respond, but don't. You seem to know what reality will allow? Impressive, but excuse me if I don' t take your word for it. Please demonstrate that simply not responding is something reality will not allow. Furthermore, the others here pointed out some more options that are also possible. So, it seems that Spock's "axiom" wasn't one at all.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 1:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 2:20 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 31 of 297 (486473)
10-21-2008 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 2:20 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Nature
Bertot writes:
Huntard writes
but don't.
You do understand that "but dont" is a choice to not "willing" do or not do something, correct. In your scenerio they seem to be willing at first but then change thier mind, which would mean that they were then unwilling.
D Bertot
No, not correct. I admit it goes completely against logic, but you can want to do something, have the means to do it, and yet not do it. They don't change their mind, they are simply illogical beings.
Edited by Huntard, : Spellings

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 2:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 43 of 297 (486494)
10-21-2008 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 9:30 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
Bertot writes:
Huntard writes:
No, not correct. I admit it goes completely against logic, but you can want to do something, have the means to do it, and yet not do it. They don't change their mind, they are simply illogical beings.
Surely you are joking here. If you have a mind to do something and yet not do it, it means you changed your mind. Not following through means you decided not to, illogical or otherwise. I will admitthis is the wierdest response yet.
No I'm not joking. I have a mind to do a great many things, but I don't do them all. The fact that I don't do everything I want to do doesn't mean I don't WANT to do them though.
They don't change their mind, they are simply illogical beings.
Even being illogical involves a decision, unless we are talking about women, ha ha.
[sarcasm]Well, you hit the nail on the head, these are female aliens[/sarcasm]
But fine, whatever, let's concentrate on the main argument here, I'm done with this, you won't concede anyway. Please provide some "axioms of reality" so we can discuss them.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 64 of 297 (486544)
10-22-2008 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
10-22-2008 8:10 AM


Re: concious perception
Bertot writes:
Huntard writes:
No I'm not joking. I have a mind to do a great many things, but I don't do them all. The fact that I don't do everything I want to do doesn't mean I don't WANT to do them though.
UNABLE. Getting tired yet.
Yes, very tired. Where did I state I was unable to do them? I am able to knock someone over the head if he pisses me off, I also WANT to do that, yet I don't. And now of course you are going to say I'm not REALLY wanting to do it then. So I guess I'll just debate in this style with you until YOU get tired:
I have refuted your "axiom".
But fine, whatever, let's concentrate on the main argument here, I'm done with this, you won't concede anyway. Please provide some "axioms of reality" so we can discuss them.
You ignore the axiom right in front of you and your ability to show it as not one, then ask me to provide one. OK heres another one. Bluejay stated that a chemical has the possibiltiy of two choices, to react or not react, this is correct. Please provide me with another possibility. If it does it did, if it doesnt it didnt, what or are the other choices in that context,now remember dont change the scenerio and reality.
Again:
I, and others, have refuted your "axiom".
By your logic, I am able to state that ANYONE has a chance of 50% to win the lottery, because you either do or don't, there's no denying this "reality". Try to refute it if you can.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-22-2008 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 86 of 297 (486636)
10-23-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dawn Bertot
10-23-2008 7:14 AM


Bertot writes:
Huntard writes:
Yes, very tired. Where did I state I was unable to do them? I am able to knock someone over the head if he pisses me off, I also WANT to do that, yet I don't. And now of course you are going to say I'm not REALLY wanting to do it then. So I guess I'll just debate in this style with you until YOU get tired:
I have refuted your "axiom".
Hardly.
You do realize that not doing something even if you have a mind to involves a decision to not follow through, so it would fall into the category of unwilling (decided not to) or unable (because you decided otherwise or something got in the way), correct.? In other words WHY did you not follow through with kncking him in the head? Answer that simple question.
I simply didn't. No reason was involved.
And now for the beauty, that shows just how wrong your "logic" is:
By your logic, I am able to state that ANYONE has a chance of 50% to win the lottery, because you either do or don't, there's no denying this "reality". Try to refute it if you can.
Exacally correct. Hey guess what another axiom. You have one of two choices, you will either win or you will not. What other choices are there that logic, relaity and commonsesnse will allow. Glad you reminded me I need to get my tickests for the work group before its to late this evening, Im the Power ball honcho.
If you play and win you win, if you dont play and someone else plays in your name and they win you win. Or if you dont play and know one else plays for you, you dont win. You see there is no way to avoid one of the two choices. You either win or lose, even if you dont play, you dont win, there are no other choices, thats the nature of an axiom. thanks Huntard.
You actually AGREE that ANYONE has a 50% chance of winning the lottery? wow....just wow....
I'm going to give you some advice. Stop this! Seriously, you're becoming the laughing stock in this thread. EVERYONE that has responded to your posts has told you you are wrong, NO ONE has actually agreed with you in whatever way possible. If this doesn't make the alarmbells go off in your head I don't know what will.
Here's a little "axiom" of my own:
"Bertot will never admit he is wrong in this thread"
At least this one is far more of an axiom than ANY you have provided. (which aren't even axioms anyway)

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-23-2008 7:14 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Parasomnium, posted 10-23-2008 10:01 AM Huntard has not replied
 Message 88 by Straggler, posted 10-23-2008 11:55 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 95 of 297 (486660)
10-23-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dawn Bertot
10-23-2008 12:17 PM


Re: Woooohoooo!!!!
Bertot writes:
Huntard writes
I simply didn't. No reason was involved.
My friend, nobody in thier right mind nor anythinking person would say that, "I simply didnt" does not involve a choice or some reason preventing it. If I was contemplating going to the store and didnt, it would mean I changed my mind about going, therefore UNWILLING due to the fact that I am lazy, preoccupied or just plain stupid. Did you fall asleep, did you lose your ability to move, did you forget how to move, did you decide to go later, there is always a reason. Surely no one is that ignorant. Excuse me ADMIN for such a comment but that is just plain stupid.
The fact that it does not involve a choice is exactly my point! It's completely illogical for me to do so, but who says the aliens from your first example work the same way as humans. In fact, it is most likely they work in a completely different way. They could work this way, and this would leave your "axiom" in shambles. So, I state the aliens work this way, and your "axiom" is defeated, try again please.
Oh and about that ignorant comment, I don't really care what you call me, I'll let the others decide for themselves what they think about me.
You actually AGREE that ANYONE has a 50% chance of winning the lottery? wow....just wow....
I'm going to give you some advice. Stop this! Seriously, you're becoming the laughing stock in this thread. EVERYONE that has responded to your posts has told you you are wrong, NO ONE has actually agreed with you in whatever way possible. If this doesn't make the alarmbells go off in your head I don't know what will.
Let me get this straight, you make the previous comment about, "I just didnt, no reason involved" and you are calling my position a laughing stock. That has to be the mother or all ignorant statements.
Hey knothead, read what I said again, Idid not say everybody has a fifty fifty chance of winning the lottery, I said a person has the capability of winning or losing. In this instance there are no other choices, if there are give me one. Pay attention please. That is not the same as saying they have a fifty fifty chance.
I said:
Huntard writes:
By your logic, I am able to state that ANYONE has a chance of 50% to win the lottery, because you either do or don't, there's no denying this "reality". Try to refute it if you can.
Let me break it down for you:
The main sentence here is: "By your logic, I am able to state that ANYONE has a chance of 50% to win the lottery" That is my statement if you will. This part: "because you either do or don't, there's no denying this "reality"." is an explanation of why I made that statement. This: "Try to refute it if you can." Is a challenge to you to refute the statement that "ANYONE has a chance of 50% to win the lottery"
If you then reply with:
Bertot writes:
Exacally correct. Hey guess what another axiom. You have one of two choices, you will either win or you will not. What other choices are there that logic, relaity and commonsesnse will allow. Glad you reminded me I need to get my tickests for the work group before its to late this evening, Im the Power ball honcho.
If you play and win you win, if you dont play and someone else plays in your name and they win you win. Or if you dont play and know one else plays for you, you dont win. You see there is no way to avoid one of the two choices. You either win or lose, even if you dont play, you dont win, there are no other choices, thats the nature of an axiom. thanks Huntard.
You AGREE that people have a 50% chance to win the lottery. Nothing form this statement points to you NOT agreeing with this. But thanks for calling me a Knothead in the process.
"Bertot will never admit he is wrong in this thread"
At least this one is far more of an axiom than ANY you have provided. (which aren't even axioms anyway)
Oh I might if any could demonstrate the position as invalid or incorect. But let me make this axiomatic statement, it wont be by anyone as observably ignorant as yourself.
We DID demonstrate your position is incorrect. You just keep shouting NUH-UH! And then go about your business as if you're still in the right. And even the fact you say you MIGHT, IF demonstrated to be false does not speak for you. If one is shown he is not correct, it shows him to be a well thinking fellow if he just admits this fact and goes to seek other ways of arguing his case, not screaming "NO WAYZ!" at the top of his lungs. But I'm ignorant, so what do I know.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-23-2008 12:17 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 133 of 297 (486781)
10-24-2008 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dawn Bertot
10-24-2008 10:05 AM


Bertot writes:
Huntard writes:
The fact that it does not involve a choice is exactly my point!
I know, but your point is silly and nonsense. Were you unconscious or asleep, (unable) if not it does involve a choice or reason, even if you were standing there doing nothing. Please provide for me a situation or thing in reality that does not have a reason.
No it isn't, it just goes against everything we see as functioning normally, but these are aliens, not normal human beings. I again state that this is the way the aliens work, when they are able to do something and willing to do something, they don't. thus Spock was wrong and your "axiom" is proven not to be an axiom at all. (which it wasn't in the first place anyway)
It's completely illogical for me to do so
Being illogical is still a mental process, as Onifre and PaulK are demonstrating, ha ha, but you see my point.
Yes, for a human, not for an alien species that works differently from us.
We DID demonstrate your position is incorrect.
This is interesting. How could you demonstrate my position as INCORRECT when you dont believe there is enough information to make a decision on way or another?
Excuse me? where did I say I didn't have enough information to decide if your "axiom" was true or not?
A bit silly dont you think?
Very silly, if it were true.
Not even being able to postulate another solution only demonstrates that you are making unfounded assertions..
However, I did, and so did many others, the fact you just keep saying they aren't doesn't make it true, Bertot.
You should be ABLE to provide another solution in either of the examples, correct? Claiming that it is not an axiom wothout providing another solution amounts to assertion.
WE DID! We showed you countless of examples of why Mr. Spock was wrong, just because you keep saying "they aren't" doesn't mean we didn't provide them. And what Rrhain has explained very well now twice, is that you're not even using an axiom.
Huntard writes:
But I'm ignorant, so what do I know.
Careful, this is to easy to demonstrate, that is if you are not asleep or unconscious.
Of course it is easy to demonstrate, just ask me a question I know nothing about, I'd be ignorant on that subject. Now the challenge for you is to find that subject.
Edited by Huntard, : grammar

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-24-2008 10:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 160 of 297 (486875)
10-25-2008 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Dawn Bertot
10-25-2008 8:45 AM


Bertot writes:
Huntard writes:
No it isn't, it's just goes into everything we see as functioning normally, but these are aliens, not normal human beings. I again state that this is the way the aliens work, when they are able to do something and willing to do something, they don't. thus Spock was wrong and your "axiom" is proven not to be an axiom at all. (which it wasn't in the first place anyway)
Hence, Unable. The axiom and UNABLE AND UNWILLING apply to both parties in the scenario. So the enterprise is unable to recieve the maessage regardless of the aliens methods or inability to do things the way we do.
Spock said the aliens were unable or unwilling, he didn't say the enterprise was unable. Don't change what Spock said.
The reason/s do not and will not mater to unsettle the axiom. Looking for reasons is subsidiary to the reality of the axiom itself and have no application to it as the axiom is itself reality.
Your "axiom" has been proven false, and it's not even an axiom anyway. (See Rrhain's responses to you.)

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-25-2008 8:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024