|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist,
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". 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.
quote: It pretty much has to be that way for Spock to be making any sense, doesn't it? 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? 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. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
Hello Catholic Scientist,
I dont really want to get into the next stage of the problem. I believe that RAZD is dealing with it one step at a time. However, it is impolite to let a question go unanswered.
I would think that being "able" to respond would include being heard and understood by the receiver, no? 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 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". This is incorrect. By shouting the message, you have responded. You did not lose the ability to respond. You lost the ability to communicate. This is the whole point of the disagreement. You were willing and able to respond. You performed the action of response by shouting the message. Just because communication failed, it did not mean that you did not attempt communication with your reponse.
It pretty much has to be that way for Spock to be making any sense, doesn't it? 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. I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
In other words, is it your position that there are four possible outcomes: 1.willing & able - reply made 2.not[willing] but able - reply not made = Spock's "unwilling" 3.willing but not[able] - reply not made = Spock's "unable" 4.not[willing] & not[able] - reply not made = both Yes true, this is my position. Actually only two but I understand your meaning concerning the opposites
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
Hello Dawn Bertot,
What about these options... willing & able - reply made - reply not received. willing & able - reply not made Neither of these options fit into the two options you have provided in your example. In both options the ship is willing and able, yet not response was detected by the Enterprise.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
RAZD writes: nor do I want to restrict participation of others Im willing to participate here but unable to understand exactly what is going on. Im always willing but not always able. I wish I was as able as I was willing. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
Hey Chuck77,
Your post indicates that you are both willing and able to perform the task of responding. Your post is a response. You may have actually put another alternate option on the table. You were willing and able to povide a response. however, the response does not take us anywhere. you have shown that you are both willing and able to provide a response. On another note, I saw one of your first activities as a mod, the Flat Earth thread proposal. When i read it I got the impression that he should have titled it : Can someone do my homework for me? I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
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 dont see why the definition is to broad. Doesnt the definition have to include the situation and parties that are involved. If the goal is to reach or make contact with the other party, whether thier requesting it or that is you specific goal, Able or Unable would include all the aspects On the other hand, if my goal is to get to the lake no later than 9:00 am, and I arrive at 9:32, I was unable to accomplish my goal or task, correct. Here is a situation where only my purposes were involved and I failed Even in your limited definitions, you are only still Able or unable to accomplish your task, you have not described another term or area Even if you are willing and able and make no contact, your were still just willing and able. I see no other category even still Am I missing something Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
Hello Dawn Bertot, What about these options... willing & able - reply made - reply not received. willing & able - reply not made Neither of these options fit into the two options you have provided in your example. In both options the ship is willing and able, yet no response was detected by the Enterprise. Is there something here besides willing and able, Im not seeing it. Even if no contact was made, is there something different than your ability to be willing and able You were Willing not able You were Willing and able You were Able not willing I see nothing else, even from only your limited perspective Am I missing something Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes:
Which 2 outcomes do you not consider possible? In other words, is it your position that there are four possible outcomes: 1.willing & able - reply made 2.not[willing] but able - reply not made = Spock's "unwilling" 3.willing but not[able] - reply not made = Spock's "unable" 4.not[willing] & not[able] - reply not made = both Yes true, this is my position. Actually only two but I understand your meaning concerning the oppositesAlways remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
Am I missing something yes you are. you are forgetting your example. Upon not receiving any communication from the second vessel Spock gave two possible options:they are either unwilling to respond or unable to respond. Those are the two options that you say exist. no others.
willing & able - reply made - reply not received. this is an example where the second craft is both willing and able to respond, but no response is received. A third option that Spock did not recognise.
willing & able - reply not made The second craft may be willing and able to reply, but is unaware that they have been hailed in the first place. A forth option that Spock did not recognise. The words willing and able are not the words that you are having trouble with. You seem to believe that the task of responding has to achieve successful communication in order to be completed. this is a mistake on your part. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Dawn Bertot, thanks.
Yes true, this is my position. Actually only two but I understand your meaning concerning the opposites Excellent, now we can move on to the next questions - definitions: (1) -- What do you mean by "able" (to respond)? The dictionaries defines "able" to be:
Able Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: How do you define "able"? (2) -- What do you mean by "willing" (to respond)? Again, the dictionary definitions for "willing" are:
Willing Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: How do you define "willing"? (3) -- And (per Message 17) - what do you mean by "respond" Here, the dictionary definitions for "respond" are:
Respond Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: How do you define "respond"? I need these definitions to make sure that when we use these terms that we mean the same thing. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added "respond" definitions, formating Edited by RAZD, : subtitle Edited by RAZD, : subagain Edited by RAZD, : splng Edited by RAZD, : ...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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Dawn Bertot
I dont see why the definition is to broad. It seems too broad to me because it includes some things that are not included in the dictionary definitions. (see Message 26)
Doesnt the definition have to include the situation and parties that are involved. Why? Definitions are intended for general use and common understanding, so we don't need to redefine a word every time we use it in order to fit a particular situation. If that were necessary then we should use the situation specific definitions instead of the words.
If the goal is to reach or make contact with the other party, whether thier requesting it or that is you specific goal, That could well be the goal of the Enterprise, however we don't know if communication is the goal of the receiving party. However, the immediate goal for the Enterprise was to get a response.
On the other hand, if my goal is to get to the lake no later than 9:00 am, and I arrive at 9:32, I was unable to accomplish my goal or task, correct. Here is a situation where only my purposes were involved and I failed We are not talking about goals, but about response, willing and able. You were able to get to the lake, you were willing to get to the lake. Your response was made. Spock left at 9:20 am and did not see it.
Even in your limited definitions, you are only still Able or unable to accomplish your task, you have not described another term or area Even if you are willing and able and make no contact, your were still just willing and able. I see no other category even still We haven't got to that question yet, what we are doing is exploring the definitions of the words. Obviously, from the discussion so far, we can see that these definitions are important to establish so that we are talking about the same things. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined:
|
Hello Butterflytyrant,
Butterflytyrant writes: willing & able - reply made - reply not received. this is an example where the second craft is both willing and able to respond, but no response is received. A third option that Spock did not recognize. I believe that in your example the term unable still applies. Especially if we use the definitions that RAZD provides in message 26.
RAZD writes: adjective1. 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 - adj1. ( postpositive ) having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity, etc, to do something: able to swim and Function: adjective1 : possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective < able to perform under the contract> In each of the definitions it includes the adjective of necessary or needed. In your example where a reply is made by the other ship but undetected by the Enterprise, it is not of a form or medium that is necessitated by the Enterprise. So the classification of unable would still apply. They are able to make a reply, but unable to make it in the necessary form that the Enterprise can recognize. So they are still either unwilling or unable. Your thoughts? Edited by rueh, : Add emphasis'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat' The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
Hello Rueh,
Butterflytyrant writes: willing & able - reply made - reply not received. this is an example where the second craft is both willing and able to respond, but no response is received. A third option that Spock did not recognize. your reply - I believe that in your example the term unable still applies. Especially if we use the definitions that RAZD provides in message 26. The only task required is to possess the ability (able) to make a response (reply). Before I started typeing this reply, I was willing and able to reply. I had the necessary power and the will to respond. I was able to respond. If I choose not to respond, I do not lose the ability to perform the task of responding. I still am able. The task of responding does not require communication to be acheived. for example - This is a typed response to you - In this message I have successfully completed the task of responding to reuh. I just went outside and yelled - 'In this message I have successfully completed the task of responding to reuh.' here is the same message in a foreign language - katika ujumbe huu mimi kuwa na mafanikio ya kumaliza kazi ya kukabiliana na reuh. All three of the examples are replies. I have completed the task of responding. In the first example, I was willing and able to respond by typeing the message. In the second example, I was willing and able to yell the message. The fact that you did not receive the message does not mean I have lost the ability to yell. I completed the task of responding. In the third example. I again have successfully completed the task of responding. The fact that you do not understand the message does not mean i have lost the ability or willingness to formulate a response. It is clear I was willing and able to send the response because you are looking at it on your screen.
In each of the definitions it includes the adjective of necessary or needed. The task is response. In all of my examples I had the needed or necessary powers to formulate the responses.
They are able to make a reply, but unable to make it in the necessary form that the Enterprise can recognize. They are able to make a reply (response), but unable to make it in the necessary form that the Enterprise can recognize (communicate). The task is response, not communicate. The craft being unable to make it in a form the Enterprise recognises means they are unable to communicate, not unable to reply. Response and communicate are two different things with two different requirements.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
Excellent, now we can move on to the next questions - definitions: (1) -- What do you mean by "able" (to respond)? The dictionaries defines "able" to be: Able Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com 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 - adj1. ( postpositive ) having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity, etc, to do something: able to swim and Function: adjective1 : possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective < able to perform under the contract> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How do you define "able"? I am fine with these definitions, all I need is another word that does not include Willing or Able or a combination of the two,or the opposites obviously. Is there another word Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024