Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,226 Year: 5,483/9,624 Month: 508/323 Week: 5/143 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 211 (632398)
09-07-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
09-07-2011 1:46 PM


Was "Spock" right?
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:
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.
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-07-2011 1:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 8:57 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2011 9:54 PM RAZD has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 17 of 211 (632408)
09-07-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
09-07-2011 1:46 PM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-07-2011 1:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2011 9:55 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


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

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 19 of 211 (632450)
09-08-2011 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot
09-07-2011 11:35 PM


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 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2011 11:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 211 (632456)
09-08-2011 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-06-2011 10:56 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 10:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-08-2011 6:30 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 21 of 211 (632460)
09-08-2011 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Chuck77
09-08-2011 5:56 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Chuck77, posted 09-08-2011 5:56 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 22 of 211 (632485)
09-08-2011 8:57 AM
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 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 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


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

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3827 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 24 of 211 (632491)
09-08-2011 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot
09-07-2011 11:35 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot 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
Yes true, this is my position. Actually only two but I understand your meaning concerning the opposites
Which 2 outcomes do you not consider possible?

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2011 11:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:54 AM Panda has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 25 of 211 (632492)
09-08-2011 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2011 9:08 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
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

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by rueh, posted 09-08-2011 4:15 PM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 32 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:39 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 211 (632540)
09-08-2011 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot
09-07-2011 11:35 PM


Stage 2: definitions
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:
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"?
(2) -- What do you mean by "willing" (to respond)?
Again, the dictionary definitions for "willing" are:
Willing Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
- adjective
1. disposed or consenting; inclined: willing to go along.
and
- adj
1. favourably disposed or inclined; ready
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:
- verb
verb (used without object)
1. to reply or answer in words: to respond briefly to a question.
2. to make a return by some action as if in answer: to respond generously to a charity drive.
3. to react favorably.
4. Physiology. to exhibit some action or effect as if in answer; react: Nerves respond to a stimulus.
5. to correspond (usually followed by to ).
and
respond (rɪˈspɒnd) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
- vb (foll by to )
1. to state or utter (something) in reply
2. ( intr ) to act in reply; react: to respond by issuing an invitation
3. to react favourably: this patient will respond to treatment
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, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2011 11:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:00 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 211 (632556)
09-08-2011 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2011 8:57 AM


Re: Stage 2: definitions
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 8:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:19 AM RAZD has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 28 of 211 (632580)
09-08-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Butterflytyrant
09-08-2011 9:23 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
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:
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>
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

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 29 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-08-2011 10:52 PM rueh has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 29 of 211 (632607)
09-08-2011 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by rueh
09-08-2011 4:15 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by rueh, posted 09-08-2011 4:15 PM rueh has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024