Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 15 of 211 (632374)
09-07-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Butterflytyrant
09-06-2011 11:04 PM


Wasn't Spock right?
I was argueing that being willing and adble to respond did not mean that the target of that response received the response or was able to understand the response.
I would think that being "able" to respond would include being heard and understood by the receiver, no?
I mean, lets say that they just couldn't reach the 'Talk' button on their transponder, so instead chose to just shout their message. That's technically "responding", but since the receiver can't hear them, then the sender is "unable to respond".
It pretty much has to be that way for Spock to be making any sense, doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-06-2011 11:04 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2011 7:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 17 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-07-2011 10:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 68 of 211 (632995)
09-11-2011 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
09-07-2011 7:47 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
To my mind, this comes down to how the terms are defined. Here you are suggesting that "able to respond" includes (1) being able to communicate rather than just being able to make a response of some kind that may or may not be detected, and (2) being able to reach the 'Talk' button etc so that the reply can be delivered. That's pretty broad for a definition.
I'm fine with the intended definition being considered "broad".
Well, isn't that one of the questions? Was (the TV character\script) Spock right? Are TV writers known for the validity of their logic?
I could accept that it was poor word choice by the writers, but I'm pretty sure that Spock wouldn't have made such an amateur mistake. Because of that, and judging from the script, I think Spock's claim used the broader defintion.
We'll have to see what Dawn Bertot has to say about the word definitions once we establish that the op does accurately portray his position.
I'd rather speculate about Spock, so I'll leave you to that.

From Message 39:
quote:
When it comes to "willing" it may be possible to be ambivalent (a null position), answering sometimes and other times not, as more of a whim than a willingness, perhaps based on the toss of a coin.


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

ambivalent & able
reply made sometimes\occasionally
not[willing] but able
reply not made
not[able]
willing but not[able]
reply not made
ambivalent but not[able]
reply not made
not[willing] & not[able]
reply not made

Another word that could be used in place of ambivalent is apathetic, but in either case we have a situation where they just don't care either way, and may decide on the whim of the moment or some external factor whether or not to respond.
I could see it either way... where willingness and ambivalence are either mutually exclusive or not. It depends on how you want to look at it.
But I do think that the way Spock was talking, he would consider ambivalence to be unwillingness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2011 7:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 10:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 69 of 211 (632996)
09-11-2011 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Butterflytyrant
09-07-2011 10:31 PM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
No. Whateverit is that is producing the response may have the ability to respond (able) without being heard or understood by the receiver.
Here is the definition of response-
response - the act of responding; reply or reaction
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.
The task of responding can be completed without the target being able to hear or understand that response. Communication requires understanding.
I agree that "communicate" would have been a better word, but I do think that is what Spock meant when he used the word 'respond'.
My point originally was that the two options Spock gave were not the only options. If Spock had used the word 'communicate', then the example would be correct. However, he used the word response, which means the example was not limited to the two options given.
But this would turn Spock into a blundering idiot, which we all know he was not.
Consider this bolded part, from the movie script:
quote:
59 INT. ENTERPRISE BRIDGE 59
Featuring Spock and Uhura, as she keeps trying --
UHURA
... Again, this is Enterprise calling
Space Lab Regula I. Come in, please.
Dr. Marcus. Please respond, please
-- it's no use; no response from
Regula I.
SPOCK
But no longer jammed?
UHURA
No, sir. No nothing.
Spock considers, moves to Kirk.
SPOCK
There are two possibilities, sir
they are unwilling to respond, they
are unable to respond.
The problem is one of communication, which Spock has just learned is not jammed. And Uhura is the one who brought up a 'reponse'.
I don't think there's any room for Spock to be making the simple error of failing to consider that the people on the ship could technically be responding even thought they Enterprise isn't receiving communication (say, by shouting their message instead of using the communicator). That would be very un-Spock-like... Doncha think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-07-2011 10:31 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 10:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 81 of 211 (633143)
09-12-2011 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
09-11-2011 10:30 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
But I do think that the way Spock was talking, he would consider ambivalence to be unwillingness.
Curiously, Dawn Bertot said that it made them unable.
I suppose there's a bit of an overlap; if you were so ambivalent that you just couldn't bring yourself to do it, then I could call that 'unable'. To me, ambivalence feels like a lack of will (as the cliche goes: where there's a will there's a way) rather than something that is prohibiting my ability.
But at the end of the day, you didn't get it done. So you either couldn't or you wouldn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 10:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 82 of 211 (633145)
09-12-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Butterflytyrant
09-11-2011 10:33 PM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
I had no real intention of pursuing this as far as I have.
Funny how that works, huh?
My original comment refuting Dawn Bertots claim was a few lines. He provided a couple of lines from a Star Trek episode. I refuted the claim he made based on those few lines. I had no real intention of pursuing this as far as I have. It is quite possible that Spock meant something other than what he said. However, this was not provided in the example. I also have not seen or have forgotten the episode in question. I was provided with a few lines and a claim based upon those few lines. I refuted the example given.
Okay, that's fine, but you refuted the wrong claim. With the semantic ambiguity behind us, lets move on to the actual claim,
You didn't get said thing done, because you either couldn't or you wouldn't... is there room for any other position(s)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 10:33 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:14 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 86 of 211 (633246)
09-13-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Butterflytyrant
09-13-2011 8:14 AM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
Wrong claim? I saw an example. There were obvious flaws to that example. I have refuted 'a' claim.
You refuted a dumbed-down version of a popular claim. And consider your source
There is no ambiguity. I have deconstructed the sentences. It is not a complicated group of phrases. I am not translating linear B. The statements were made. The statements were wrong. The statements were refuted.
Actual claim? If the example was solid, there would be no actual claim and a seperate second claim. There would just be 'the claim'.
It came from a scene in a movie... That adds restrictions, context, and ambiguity. There's a much more interesting discussion in the claim itself, than in the meanings of the words used in the claim.
The example is pretty broad. It is also different to the original example that was supplied. If this is what DB actually wanted to say, then he should have provided this example. As he did not provide this example, I dont really see why we are discussing it. All you need to do to make DBs arguement sound is change the word respond to communicate. Then it would actually illustrate DBs point. As this is not what the example says, it does not illustrate his point.
If someone uses and example that is obviously flawed, would it be better to just let them continue making the mistake. Or is it better to attempt to show them how with a single word change, their example makes sense?
That depends on why you're debating:
quote:
Honest Debate: how do you read?
So do you read for understanding (as best you can)?
Or do you read to find and pick out points to base a refutation on?
To your example.
Yes, let's. This could be a worthy discussion.
There is a grey area around couldnt if I was not aware I needed to get something done. It may depend on the task.
How so? What do you mean? Can you provide an example?
But this example is far and away better than the one DB used.
All his example requires is the change of the word respond to communicate and it is sound. As it is, it fails to illustrate his point.
Oh, so you agree that Spock was right if he meant communicate? Can you think of another position between/around unwilling and unable that would refute his claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:14 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 11:30 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 88 of 211 (633270)
09-13-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Butterflytyrant
09-13-2011 11:30 AM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
Of course. The example was wrong for the reasons I pointed out. I have never said anything different to this.
I know, and you're keeping it up despite my attempt to move the discussion forward.
Spock would have been right, and DB would have been right, if the word communicate was used instead of respond. That is what I have been telling DB this whole time.
And in light of the additional context I provided, don't you think that Spock use of the word 'reposnse' implied a meaning that is closer to "communicate" in that it assumes the responder's capability of getting the message to the Enterpirse because they weren't jammed?
I have no issue with the example, or with DB's actual point. I have been pointing out that the example is flawed and have been pointing out how it can be fixed.
I have already told you this. This is from a reply I sent to you and you have already replied to so I can only assume that you have read it. Back in Message 17
I replied to that and then you posted a bunch of pictures of dorks...
So yes, I agree that if Spock had said communicate, the example would be fine. I told you this six days ago.
Yeah, I get that. But you seem like you still have some disagreement with my position.
I dont know how to spell this out any clearer other than to just keep repeating it over and over again.
A simple "No." would have sufficed.
The problem with the example is the word respond. There is no need to alter, adjust, transform, refine, convert or correct either of those two words. I do not need to come up with any other words other than willing or able.
How, after all of those posts, is it possible that you think I have any issue with the words willing or able?
Its the topic of the thread, I've taken a position against the OP, you seem to be disgreeing with me.
But lets move on to the example.
your example - You didn't get said thing done, because you either couldn't or you wouldn't... is there room for any other position(s)?
my reply - There is a grey area around couldnt if I was not aware I needed to get something done. It may depend on the task.
your reply - How so? What do you mean? Can you provide an example?
If the task was to catch a bus. I did not catch the bus. I was standing at the bus stop and just watched it drive by. I "could have" caught the bus. I "would have" caught the bus.
Well no, you wouldn't have caught the bus. If you would have, then you'd be on it, but you're not. I agree that you were capable, but you lacked the will to get on it and that's why you're not. You were unwilling.
See what I mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 11:30 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 11:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 95 of 211 (633325)
09-13-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
09-13-2011 2:43 PM


Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
But that isn't what ambivalent means.
Pardon me, I was writing ambivalent and thinking apathetic...
You can't be both not[willing] AND [ambivalent]
I would say that if you were ambivalent, and didn't get it done, then you weren't willing to get it done.
From Message 89:
It always amuses me when people say things like this. Curiously I am busy with many projects and do not have time to hang on your every post and assertion, and then get into a fetid rush to respond. Amusingly,
  • I am willing to respond
  • I am able to respond
  • but I haven't had the time yet to respond due to other factors impacting my life -- that are a higher priority.
This of course, is another possibility to explain the lack of response during the time when Spock et al were monitoring for a response ...
If you don't respond because other factors are more important, then you are unwilling to repspond. You may have wanted to, but you weren't willing to actually do it. I think this is a difference between our word usage, where you're saying that wanting to but not is still "willing" to do it. I'm saying that even if you wanted to but you didn't, then you weren't really willing to.
The ambivalence\apathy affect whether a decision to respond is made or a decision to not respond is made. The second ship could be highly conflicted whether to respond or not and thus have not yet decided to respond. Perhaps they are highly paranoid and fear the results of either path.
If they were too scared to respond, then they were unwilling to.
But at the end of the day, you didn't get it done. So you either couldn't or you wouldn't.
post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, (also begging the question, affirming the consequent).
Huh? How? Why?
At the end of the day, a response was not made: why that response was not made has not been determined.
(snip)
Was a response made but not received?
That would mean they were unable to (adequately) respond.
Was it paranoid ambivalence that sees both response and non-response as equally bad for the second ship?
Well if they didn't respond, then they weren't willing to.
Was it an automatic program in the ship that did not receive the proper input stimulus (a clearance code?) for a response to be sent?
Unable. They weren't capable of getting the reponse to the Enterprise.
Was it lack of available time, with higher priority tasks (like simple survival) such that they just don't have time to spend on a response? Able to respond, willing to respond, not sure if there is enough time for response and other high priority tasks (and was it their conclusion in evaluating priorities that a response was a low priority, as they were sure the Enterprise would investigate further if none was received, so the time would be better spent on surviving until then?)
Unwilling. They weren't willing to to actually send the response even thought they would have if they had the time or enough desire.
These are just some of the many possibilities.
I'm still not convinced any of those fall outside of unable or unwilling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 2:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 4:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 100 of 211 (633344)
09-13-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
09-13-2011 4:10 PM


Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
Then you are rejecting the definitions of willing and ambivalent in order to assume you are correct.
Au contraire, I am using a different definition:
From your online dictionary:
quote:
willing
—adjective
3. done, given, borne, used, etc., with cheerful readiness.
And further down:
quote:
will
—verb (used with object)
9. to decide, bring about, or attempt to effect or bring about by an act of the will: He can walk if he wills it.
My definition is about getting it done. If you don't get it done, and you were able, then you were unwilling.
No, I am willing to do it fourth on my list of prioritized tasks. I somehow feel that survival is more important than response, so once I get that solved I can move on to making a response.
So yeah, your definition is more about wanting to do it...
But that definition doesn't make sense in light of the context of the situation. Spock had just learned that their communicators were not jammed, he wouldn't be making a statement about whether or not they wanted to respond, he was talking about the fact that they had not responded, so if they were able, then that must mean that they didn't bring it about... they were "unwilling".
What there says I will not make a response? What there says I cannot make a response?
Its not about what you might do in the future, its about what you haven't done right now. The fact that the response was not made shows that you were either unwilling or unable.
I don't wait up all night for posts here so I can rush out a response - does that make me unwilling to respond?
You may still have the desire to repond, but you have not brought it about. In the sense of your desire, you are willing to respond, but in the sense bringing it about, you were unwilling.
AND if they were too scared to NOT respond, then by your logic they were willing.
But that would mean the the Enterpirse had received the response, which they did not.
If they are paranoid ambivalent, scared about the consequences of EITHER action, then what does that make them? Ambivalent.
And unwilling (in the sense of bringing it about) to respond.
False. Getting the response to the enterprise is not the task, making a response is the task.
No, Spock was talking about them getting their reponse to the Enterprise. He wasn't considering that maybe they were just stuck in their ship shouting really loudly in an attempt to "respond".
It doesn't matter what said task is, if you didn't get it done then you couldn't or you wouldn't... you are unable or unwilling.
They were able to respond, they were willing to respond, a response was made but the ship did not send it because the Enterprise did not have the proper security measures and clearance codes.
The ship is a high security research vessel with a simple program:
if the proper security measures and clearance codes are present, then allow communication
else (if the proper security measures and clearance codes are not present then) do not allow communication
Explain how the mere existence of this program affects
A.the ability of the people in the second ship to formulate a response and have the equipment to send it:
The fact that they could not get their response to the Enterprise means that they were unable to do it.
The program reacts to the existence or absence of the proper security measures and clearance codes, the program does not have [able]ity to respond, it does not have [willing]ness to respond, as those must come from the crew, so a response is only sent IF:
  1. the people in the second ship have the ability to formulate a response and have the equipment to send it
  2. the people in the second ship have the willingness to make a response
    AND
  3. the Enterprise is using the proper security measures and clearance codes
    to communicate with the people in the second ship.
All three conditions must be met for a response to be sent from the second ship. The first two depend on the crew, while the third depends on an external factor that the crew of the second ship have no control over - whether or not the Enterprise is using the proper security measures and clearance codes.
None of that matters.
It doesn't matter what said task is, if you didn't get it done then you couldn't or you wouldn't... you are unable or unwilling.
Review the definitions above and show how they meet those definitions.
Me, and Spock, are/were not using the word "willing" to mean a desire to accomplish a task, its being used to mean the bringing about of an accomplishment of a task.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 4:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 8:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 122 of 211 (633483)
09-14-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by RAZD
09-13-2011 8:03 PM


Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
In other words you are not using the definitions agreed to by others, including Dawn Bertot, to apply lesser common usage
The commom usage, and definitions that others have agreed upon, is irrelevant to the more appropirate definition that I am using.
This is called equivocation: you need to use the same meaning that fits with the usage and not a meaning that doesn't, you need to consistently use the same meaning when talking about responding.
Well I have been consistent, and I'm using the meaning that is most appropriate for the context of the situation.
So yeah, your definition is more about wanting to do it...
Which is what the definitions that make sense in the phrase in question mean.
No, its not. Especially if you consider the whole situation:
The Enterprise had made contact with the space lab, who was saying that somebody was trying to take the Genesis, and then the signal got jammed. We already know that the space lab had the desire to communicate with the enterprise. Then we learn that their signal is no longer jammed, but that they still are not communicating. This is when Spock comes in and says they are unwilling or unable. It simply does not make sense for Spock to be talking about their desires, we already know they want help. The implication here is that the invaders of the lab either incapacitated the people so they are unable to respond or have threatened them out of their willingness to respond.
My definition is about getting it done. If you don't get it done, and you were able, then you were unwilling.
This is called begging the question: you assume that [able]ity and [willing]ness are the only options, so if you can't shoe-horn a different possibility into one, then it must come under the other.
We're talking about Spock making a logically deduced claim... Its very fitting that his word use would constrain the possibilities into the two that he is claiming. If you use my definitions, then everything fits together nicely, makes sense, and is consistent with what we know about Spock. You definitions would be more appropriate if it was Homer Simpson who was making the claim. Instead, you've turned Spock into a blundering idiot and we all know that's just crazy.
No, Spock was talking about them getting their reponse to the Enterprise. He wasn't considering that maybe they were just stuck in their ship shouting really loudly in an attempt to "respond".
Poppycock. The word used was [respond] not [communicate], and if you are going to argue about the character of Spock as indicating meaning, then I suggest to you that Spock would not make an error in the choice of the words used.
No really, read the script. They had already been communicating with the space lab and then the signal got jammed. Then the signal is un-jammed and Uraha says that they are still not getting a response. There's no way she's making a claim that the people on the ship are not screaming for help, or something; she's saying that they're not communicating with them. And then Spock re-uses the words that she did.
It doesn't matter what said task is, if you didn't get it done then you couldn't or you wouldn't... you are unable or unwilling.
If you are going to untether [able] and [willing] from [respond] then in all cases they were both [able] and [willing] to do a number of tasks (breath, eat, touch, etc), and the concept of them being [unable] or [unwilling] becomes absolutely meaningless.
You missed the point... arguing about whether the task is this or that is beside the point that willingness in this context is about the completion of the task rather than the desire to do so.
Sorry to break it to you, but Spock is a fictional character.
That's totally irrelevant.
... are/were not using the word "willing" to mean a desire to accomplish a task, its being used to mean the bringing about of an accomplishment of a task.
Then you are misusing it to mean things that are not in the definitions.
But they are in the definitions... in the dictionary that you linked to. And further, you ommitted that definition from your copy-n-paste.
Even if the task had been [communication] instead of [willing], the term [willing] would still not mean accomplishing the task, but disposed, consenting, inclined, ready, even given, to communicate.
Consenting and ready might fit here, but a simple inclination is ruled out by the context of the situation that shows that the responders already had the desire to communicate because their lab had been invaded and somebody was robbing them. It simply does not make sense for Spock to be talking about the desires of those people, plus it makes him a fool if he was (which he isn't).
You're confusing (imho) the part of the issue that belongs under [able]ity with those that belong under [willing]ness:
Perhaps, but as I said earlier: there is some overlap.
But they still do not depend on actually getting the task done, they just mean you have the ability to get the task done.
Here's what Uraha said:
quote:
... Again, this is Enterprise calling
Space Lab Regula I. Come in, please.
Dr. Marcus. Please respond, please
-- it's no use; no response from Regula I.
She cannot be making the claim that the people inside the lab are not screaming for help, she's making a claim about the fact that the Enterprise has not received a response.
Too, the person on the lab had alread asked Captain Kirk to: "please send help". So we know they have the desire to comminicate.
Your claims that they could be trying to repond but not getting it done, or that they could have the desire to comminicate even thought they haven't, simply do not fit within the context of the situation.
They're just post hoc inventions from your attempt to prove the claim wrong. Without any context, or with the claim all by itself, I agree that they could work. But given the context of the situation, they just don't fit.

You're graphic from Message 118 shows that you don't know the specifics of the situation... The Enterprise had already been communicating with the Regula when the signal got jammed by some invaders trying to steal the Genesis. Then it gets un-jammed and the people are no longer communicating. What Spock is essentially saying is that they're either dead and unable respond, or they have a gun pointed to their head and are unwilling to respond. That's what he's talking about. He's not talking about security protocols, or if there was enough time, or if the hand of god reached out and intercepted the signal as it was on its way to the Enterprise.
You're trying to shoe-horn possibilies into the situation that just don't fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 8:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 123 of 211 (633485)
09-14-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Butterflytyrant
09-13-2011 11:39 PM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
I would have caught the bus. I could have caught the bus. I did not catch the bus. But that does not mean I would not or could not at the time.
We're using different definitions for the root "will". On one end its about accomplishing the task, and on the other its about the desire to do something.
If you said that you will catch the bus, and then you don't, then no... you wouldn't do it. You still may have had the will to catch the bus, but for some reason you wouldn't actually do it.
The example first proposed by DB with the word respond changed to communicate is very specific and will illustrate your point.
But you could still (wrongly) argue that they had the will to communicate even though they wouldn't actually do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 11:39 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 11:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 129 of 211 (633604)
09-15-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by RAZD
09-14-2011 11:00 PM


Re: different definitions = different arguments rather than agreement
Just to be clear:
We're using different definitions for the root "will". On one end its about accomplishing the task, and on the other its about the desire to do something.
This means you are not talking about the same thing.
Yes, I'm pretty sure... I made it clear in my first post in this thread that I was typing about what Spock said... whatever misconstructions you have with DB don't matter to me... but I do believe I'm on topic.
ABE:
If you use the root "will" as in 'desire', then that opens up more possibilities, but if you use it like Spock did, then he is correct that those are the only two possibilities.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 11:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 10:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 135 of 211 (633660)
09-15-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by RAZD
09-15-2011 10:58 AM


Re: specific case or general case - that is the question
Hi Catholic Scientist, thanks
Sure, thanks for the discussion.
I haven't said you are off topic,
I haven't said that you said that I was off topic
I've said that your definition begs the question and creates a tautology.
Is it possible to create a sound logical deduction like this one that isn't tautologous? Isn't that kinda the point of a claim about the only possibilities?
If you want to reduce the options down to some number of them, then you're going to have to use words and phrases that do just that.
I don't agree with your interpretation of what Spock's usage was, but that is not the issue.
In addition to using a different definition, you are also arguing from a specific case with preceding conditions that affect the issue...
This case is the origination of the argument. Other cases that stem from it into incorrect claims are an aside.
however the case Dawn Bertot is making is that the "Spock dilemma" is a general case, independent of the Star Trek episode,
It can be, as I've said... but its still gonna be tautologous
My argument shows that it does not meet this standard for a general case with my posted definitions
Sure, but you're begging your question too with your definitions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 10:58 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 140 of 211 (633671)
09-15-2011 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dawn Bertot
09-14-2011 8:58 PM


Anyway I am not sure who is still playing but my original example and illustration was in conjunction with and to help demonstrate the only two logical possibilites for the existence of anything.
No, they're not the only possibilities for everything...
RAZD has done a good job showing how there are other possibilties for some things.
Which examples, specifically, are you disagreeing with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2011 8:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 10:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-17-2011 9:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 146 of 211 (633700)
09-15-2011 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by rueh
09-15-2011 4:50 PM


Re: chance and necessity
I still think that all your examples can be expressed as either able, not able, willing, not willing. There can be reasons for these but they are all expressed as the four aforementioned states.
I think apathy could be an additional state... depending on what we mean by "willing"
But the attitude of: "yeah, I would... but meh" seems to be different than "I won't".
Too, when dealing with non-conscious entities, there's no place for willingness at all.
Or if a third party is involved that stops the action's completion even though it was initiated could be something that doesn't make the person unable or unwilling.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 4:50 PM rueh 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