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

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? 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 realitiesAt one point someone mentioned ambevalence. Unfortunately, this is a mental exiercise and until it manifests in physical action, it does not apply AgreedEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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 requiredIll 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 optionsAre 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 termsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

RAZD writesPanda writes: 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 differentLets see if RAZD can add anything to the mixDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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 tasksNow 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 shipAbility in this instance does not mean they made an attempt, it means they failed and were unable to reach them to make communicationThis sounds all petty but does and will have application when considering the only possibilites as to the cause of existenceEven 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 directionThe second ship is unable to recieve the transmission, even if they are unaware, therfore unable to make a responseDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Dawn Bertot,I cant understand how you are missing the most important part of the equation over and over again.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 = RESPONDBefore 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.I did not hear the response.I have not received your response.This does not change the fact that you have completed the task of responding.It does not matter if I am expecting a response or if do not undertsand the response. This makes no difference to the fact that you have responded.You have completed the task of responding. No, this is wrong. here, once again are the definitions of response and communicate. Please tell me which parts of these definitions you cannot understand -Here is the definition of response-response - the act of responding; reply or reactionhere 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.Now, look at the definition of response. Please pay close attention to any parts of the definition of response that requires receiving the response. You will notice that there is no requirement for the second party to receive the response for the task of responding to be complete.Please tell me which part of this you cannot understand.Please answer this question. It is a yes or no question.Do you understand that the task of responding can be completed without the second party receiving or understanding the response?\Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Dawn Bertot, I have no problem with the terms willing and able. I never have. I have continually said that the problem you have is with the definition of respond and communicate. I have mentioned this many times now. New definitions of willing or able are not required. Your understanding of the definition of respond and communicate are required. The whole point I am making is that the 2nd ship may be both willing and able to respond. Saying that the were not able to contact the ship Enterprise means that they were not able to communicate. It does not mean they were not both willing and able to respond. The response is the attempt. They may have made the attempt. This is their response. They have completed the task of responding. Failing to communicate does not mean that they did not respond. Being unable to reach them means that they failed to communicate. this does not mean that they did not respond. Responding and communicating are two different things.No it does not. How does being unaware make the ship unable to perdorm the task of responding. Lets say the second ship was unaware of the original hail. Does this mean that for some unknown reason, all of their communication devices fail all of a sudden?I can yell my response to you. I am able to yell my response to you. I am willing to yell my response to you. Do you think that because you cannot hear me yelling that I become unable to yell? No, this is wrong again. For exactly the same reason it has been wrong every other time you have said it. The 2nd ship does not lose its ability to respond if it is unaware of the original hail. The ship still has the ability to respond. The 2nd ships communications are in 100% tip top working order and they have the ability to succesfully communicate with any other vessel. The are both willing and able to perform the task of responding. If, for whatever reason, they do not respond, this does not mean that they lose their ability to respond.Responding can be a 1 way transaction. The task of responding does not need to be succesfully received or understood in order to be completed.I can jump, if I choose not to jump, I do not lose the ability to jump.

Which is contradicted by: 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"?

Maybe it would help if you asked Dawn to supply his own definition of 'respond'?
From that you may be able to see why he insists on there being two parties to a response.Although RADZ provided a definition of 'able', 'willing' and 'respond' in Message 26 , Dawn only acknowledged the definition of 'able' (and implied an acceptance of the definition of 'willing'.) Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hi again Dawn Bertot, thanks. Excellent, then everyone on this thread can always refer back to the definitions of "able", "willing", and "response" as given in Message 26.Now we can move on to Stage 3: the question of alternatives. In Message 1 I said:

quote:

---

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.

---

This is really two questions:

1. Is there a zero (null) position?
   1. that is not "able" and not "not[able]"?
   2. that is not "willing" and not "not[willing]"?
   3. that is not "respond" and not "not[respond]"?
   ​
   and
   ​
2. Is there another "dimension" (word) to consider, an additional possibility to explain the lack of response being received and understood by the Enterprise?

Let's deal with the first question first:I'll admit that I do not see much room for a zero (null) position for "able" and "respond" -- it either is or it isn't (the zero (null) position is effectively included in the isn't category), as these are fairly technical questions with no element of subjectiveness.However I do see an opening in "willing" because it is subjective. As I said in Message 1:

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.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.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : =

Hello again Dawn Bertot. The purpose of the definitions is that they do not explicitly or implicitly involve personal connotations, and we agree on those definitions to prevent misunderstanding or equivocation (changing definitions within the argument).For instance, a sunflower responds to sunlight by turning towards the sun: it is [able] to respond, but it is difficult to see whether or not [willing]ness is involved, as it is more of a programed response, sun out = turn to sun, sun not out = don't turn to sun, and not a subjective decision. Not necessarily, this is why we define the terms, so that we can refer to them and then test the situation to see if it meets the requirements for [able], [willing] and [response]. Neither [able], [willing] nor [respond] list goals in their definitions. Neither [able], [willing] nor [respond] list communication in their definitions.It may be that communication is the goal of the Enterprise, as would be implied by the situation, but we cannot determine what the goals of the target are, just whether they respond or not, and we can only speculate on the reasons why a response is not detected. So then all we need to do is see if the situations being considered meet the definitions of [able], [willing] and [respond], as listed on Message 26Enjoy.

Hi again Dawn BertotBut the definition of [respond] does not include whether or not the response is received, just what constitutes a response.A sunflower responds to sunlight by turning towards the sun, and the sun does need to know or receive this information for this to be a response. Indeed, let's consider the scenario where the second ship did respond from their viewpoint: they were [willing], they were [able], they did [respond] and now await a response from the Enterprise: if the Enterprise does not respond to their message, does that mean that the Enterprise is not[willing] or not[able] to respond? Or is something else involved? 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.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : sunflower

As the initiator of this thread, I am using the "like" and "dislike" buttons to denote whether I feel the posts relate to the topic in a respectful manner.Thank you for your participation in moving the discussion forward.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : splng

Hi Panda, The response was a little ambiguous, but I took it to include all the word defintions: And that this confirms it.Enjoy.ps -- it's RAZD. Edited by RAZD, : ps

Because you are so intent on making a point, your missing a simple one 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 moviePay close attention to this one more timeIF, 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 differentMr 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 pointWhether they were successful or unsucessful is not the pointThe point is that there is no other words to decribe thier actions besides willing and ableAny 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 conclusionThere are no other categories or options. If there is, provide the wordDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You kidding right, no one is really that simplistic. Ill let you use that massive brain power of yours to figure this one outDawn Bertot