Register | Sign In

 Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Messages Thread Titles This Thread

 EvC Forum active members: 53 (9184 total)
 1 online now: dwise1 Newest Member: paulwilliam Post Volume: Total: 918,418 Year: 5,675/9,624 Month: 81/619 Week: 14/56 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House

# Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |

Thread  Details

Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 11 of 211 (632307) 09-06-2011 10:42 PM Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD09-06-2011 8:38 PM

Re: NOT THE TOPIC
Perhaps you and Straggles would like to start a logic topic thread of your own, so that I can have a discussion with Dawn Bertot.
Enjoy.
Im sure Im missing much of what you are implying in these exercises, so perhaps you could simplify
Is you implication that there is another word or category besides those I have suggested
is there something else that could be classified as a different area completely
please simlify and specify
I was not aware this thread had started
Where not[X] is the logical form for everything that is not [X] (used like (-x) in maths. So we have a grid of (+x), (-x), (+y) and (-y) and four possible results).
Does that sum up your position?
The question then comes down to what "willing" and "able" mean, whether there is a null (0) position, and whether there exists another dimension category.
If we define "able" to mean that they have in good working order whatever is necessary to send and receive and understand the communication, and "willing" to mean caring, motivated, or inclined (etc), then we need to consider if there is a "zero" position between +x and -x for these terms.
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.
Once Joey on 'Fullhouse' was presented with a very complicated scenario , it started out as "Bill was on a train traveling at 120 mph, etc etc etc. After much diliberation and explaining the problem Joey said in response to the querest
"You say this guys name was Bill"?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 10 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 8:38 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 14 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2011 1:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 18 of 211 (632411) 09-07-2011 11:35 PM Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD09-07-2011 1:12 PM

Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
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

 This message is a reply to: Message 14 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2011 1:12 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 19 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-08-2011 5:03 AM Dawn Bertot has replied Message 24 by Panda, posted 09-08-2011 9:19 AM Dawn Bertot has replied Message 26 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2011 12:52 PM Dawn Bertot has replied Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 1:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 22 of 211 (632485) 09-08-2011 8:57 AM Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD09-07-2011 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 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

 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 27 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2011 1:49 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 23 of 211 (632488) 09-08-2011 9:08 AM Reply to: Message 19 by Butterflytyrant09-08-2011 5:03 AM

Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
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

 This message is a reply to: Message 19 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-08-2011 5:03 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 25 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-08-2011 9:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 30 of 211 (632613) 09-09-2011 12:00 AM Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD09-08-2011 12:52 PM

Re: Stage 2: definitions
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
- 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"?
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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 26 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2011 12:52 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 39 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 9:58 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 31 of 211 (632614) 09-09-2011 12:19 AM Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD09-08-2011 1:49 PM

Re: Stage 2: definitions
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.
In this instance the situations would not change the meanings of these terms. But the scenarios would of course only invlove one person doing a single thing, or the terms would involve a person attempting to have involvement with another person or persons.
So as you can see, I am not attempting to change meanings, but scenarios in life would naturally involve how and when those definitions would apply. Woudnt you agree?
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.
Ill ask you the same question I asked BT. Wouldnt, goals, response and communication, be what make Willing and Able possible? IOWs, these would be mechanisms or qualifications that are sub-points, to the greater poins of willing and able, they are not something different, but a intrical part to the accomplishment of those limited realities
At one point someone mentioned ambevalence. Unfortunately, this is a mental exiercise and until it manifests in physical action, it does not apply
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.
Agreed
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 27 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2011 1:49 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 40 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 11:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (2)
 Message 32 of 211 (632615) 09-09-2011 12:39 AM Reply to: Message 25 by Butterflytyrant09-08-2011 9:23 AM

Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
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.
If "no response was recieved" then they were unable to answer the hail, because they made no contact with the enterprise, knowing a response was required
Ill try this again, pay close attention. If we look at it from the second ships point of view, they were Willing and Able, the is no other category. IOWs no other word, correct?
If we look at it from Spocks position the only terms that will apply are willing and able, Unable or unwilling, no other area to consider, nor any other options
Are you starting to see the point, it doesnt matter the position or perspective only willing or able will apply. If you think I am wrong provide me a scenario where there will be another concept besides these terms
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 25 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-08-2011 9:23 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 35 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-09-2011 2:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied Message 41 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 12:28 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 33 of 211 (632618) 09-09-2011 12:54 AM Reply to: Message 24 by Panda09-08-2011 9:19 AM

Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
RAZD writes
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
Panda writes:
Which 2 outcomes do you not consider possible?
There all possible, but dont involve another term or concept provided by english or reality, that is different than Willing or Able. If you think I am wrong provide any scenario where there would be something different
Lets see if RAZD can add anything to the mix
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 24 by Panda, posted 09-08-2011 9:19 AM Panda has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 37 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 8:49 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 34 of 211 (632621) 09-09-2011 1:19 AM Reply to: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot09-07-2011 11:35 PM

Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
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.
I think you are still missing the point. My concern is not whether they were willling or able to respond, whether they could or didnt.
The question BT is whether you can find another term Besides Wiiling or able that would define thier actions. Thats from thier perspective and tasks
Now look at ti from Spocks point of view, if no contact was recieved by the enterprise, then it does not matter whether the 2nd ship was willing or able, they were not ABLE to contact the ship
Ability in this instance does not mean they made an attempt, it means they failed and were unable to reach them to make communication
This sounds all petty but does and will have application when considering the only possibilites as to the cause of existence
Even Unaware by the second ship will translate into unable by both parties. The enterprise is Unable to cantact a ship they are attempting to contact, because they have not or cannot recieve a transmission set in thier direction
The second ship is unable to recieve the transmission, even if they are unaware, therfore unable to make a response
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2011 11:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 36 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-09-2011 2:36 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (2)
 Message 44 of 211 (632841) 09-10-2011 5:20 PM Reply to: Message 35 by Butterflytyrant09-09-2011 2:20 AM

Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
I cant understand how you are missing the most important part of the equation over and over again.
Because you are so intent on making a point, your missing a simple one
Spock said tha craft was either unable or unwilling to respond. The task is responding. The task for the second craft is to respond. How can I make this clearer to you.
how about this -
TASK = RESPOND
Before you start typing a response to this message i want you to think about it for a second.
ask yourself these questions -
Are you willing to respond by yelling your answer?
Are you able to respond by yelling your answer?
The answer to those two questions is yes.
You are willing and able to respond to this post by yelling your reply.
No perform this task. Yell the answer.
....
You have now proven that you are willing and able to respond.
No Butterfly, the tasks is not responding, the task is FOR YOU to find another word that is different than from willing or able, whether its me asking you to do it or its a scenario in a movie
Pay close attention to this one more time
IF, they were willing and able to respond (did respond) and made no contact with the ship, they were still willing and able. But now pay even closer attention. Give me another word that is different than willing or able or another concept that is not described by thier actions.
Response is what made them willing and able, its a part of and combination of williing and able, its not something different
Mr spocks wishes are not the point. What they did, is not the point. Whether they responded is not the point. Whether they were willing and able is not the point. Whether they were unwilling and unable, is not the point. Whether they were Willing but unable, is not the point, Whether they were able but not willing is not the point
Whether they were successful or unsucessful is not the point
The point is that there is no other words to decribe thier actions besides willing and able
Any actions by anyone anywhere for any reason will involve ONLY Willing and Able.
Now do you see what I am saying? Are you smelling the coffee yet?
Mr Spock, the writer, the script, whoever, whatever accurately, described a logical proposition, the likes of which is irrefutable and irresisitible in its conclusion
There are no other categories or options. If there is, provide the word
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 35 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-09-2011 2:20 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 55 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2011 10:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied Message 61 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 3:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (3)
 Message 45 of 211 (632844) 09-10-2011 5:38 PM Reply to: Message 37 by Panda09-09-2011 8:49 AM

Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
You specifically said "Actually only two" out of a list of four.
Which of the list of four are not included in your "Actually only two"?
You kidding right, no one is really that simplistic. Ill let you use that massive brain power of yours to figure this one out
Dawn Bertot

 This message is a reply to: Message 37 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 8:49 AM Panda has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 49 by Panda, posted 09-10-2011 6:37 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 46 of 211 (632847) 09-10-2011 5:43 PM Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD09-09-2011 12:40 PM

Re: Stage 2: definitions
The response was a little ambiguous, but I took it to include all the word defintions:
response is a part of ones actions that detemines whether a person is able or willing, not something different
I thought Panda would be smart enough to figure that out and it is why I did not bother with its definition. It is also why I am fine with its definition. It does not alter or change my contention concerning willing and able
Dawn Bertot

 This message is a reply to: Message 43 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 12:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 47 of 211 (632851) 09-10-2011 5:55 PM Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD09-09-2011 9:58 AM

Re: Stage 3: the questions of alternatives
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.
In this case, we posit a group of people that, for reasons unknown, depend on the toss of a coin to make decisions when they don't care either way. "Head" you respond and "Tails" you don't: the coin toss came up "Tails" ... next time it could be "heads".
They are [able] to respond and they are [willing] to respond according to the coin toss. It is the coin toss that governs whether the response is made, rather than their [able]/[willing]ness.
response is not the issue
Your problem here is a simple one and it comes down to subjectivity. Apathy is not an action. The question is were they willing and able to toss the coin. The answer is yes.
it does not matter the subjective actions the coin might produce, because they cannot make a subjective decision if they dont toss the coin. the question is were they willing and able to toss the coin
Actions and reality will only make the words valid. Doing nothing in no situation for no reason, does not promote willing and able
At bare minimum, apathy cannot be offered as an alternate term to describe something differnt than willing or able. The closest it comes is to unwilling, but nothing more or less than unwilling. Wouldnt you agree
its odd, you as a logician, would disagree with such a simple proposition
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 39 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 9:58 AM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 52 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2011 9:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 48 of 211 (632855) 09-10-2011 6:17 PM Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD09-09-2011 12:28 PM

Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives
That is the question we are now exploring: are there other options? Claiming there are no other options does not make it so, this needs to be demonstrated. That is why we are now exploring these other alternatives.
Ok this is a very Odd statement at best. Your saying I need to demonstrate more than what is or what I am claiming are the only alternatives in any situation
Reality is telling you there are no other options, I have provided the only options, shouldnt it be your responsibility to provide more than what I am claiming
I cant demonstrate what I KNOW doesnt exist. I cant provide you with a round square or a square circle, unless to manufacture a word like squircle, whis not a real thing
Dawn Bertot

 This message is a reply to: Message 41 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 12:28 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 56 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2011 11:00 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 Message 50 of 211 (632861) 09-10-2011 6:52 PM Reply to: Message 49 by Panda09-10-2011 6:37 PM

Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
You can't even support your simplest statements, can you.
I asked what should have been a simple question and you are unable to answer it honestly.
You specifically said "Actually only two" out of a list of four.
Which of the list of four are not included in your "Actually only two"?
You do understand that Unwilling and Willing are essentially the samething, correct? unwilling is the opposite end of willing, just on the other end.
same for Unable.
If you wish to make them the something different in your mind, then so be it. but that is the only place they will be two different things
The opposite side of an orange is still the same orange, correct, just on the opposite side
Dawn Bertot

 This message is a reply to: Message 49 by Panda, posted 09-10-2011 6:37 PM Panda has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 51 by Panda, posted 09-10-2011 7:08 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024