Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 12:12 PM
31 online now:
1.61803, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Sarah Bellum, Tangle, Theodoric (8 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,031 Year: 12,067/19,786 Month: 1,848/2,641 Week: 357/708 Day: 51/81 Hour: 0/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 46 of 211 (632847)
09-10-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
09-09-2011 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 acknowledged this reply

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 47 of 211 (632851)
09-10-2011 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
09-09-2011 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 responded

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

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


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

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

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1908 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 49 of 211 (632859)
09-10-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 5:38 PM


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

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


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"?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


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 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:38 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 6:52 PM Panda has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


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

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

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1908 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 51 of 211 (632864)
09-10-2011 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 6:52 PM


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

You do understand that Unwilling and Willing are essentially the samething, correct? unwilling is the opposite end of willing, just on the other end.


'Left' and 'right' are essentially the same thing? Well - I suggest you avoid using a road-map.

There is an easy way to see if 'unwilling' and 'willing' are the same: compare them.
If they mean the same thing: they are the same.

Is 'unwilling' a synonym for 'willing'? No.
Therefore they are not the same. QED.

Dawn Bertot writes:

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


...and also in dictionaries and in common English usage.
They are only the same in your head.

Dawn Bertot writes:

The opposite side of an orange is still the same orange, correct, just on the opposite side


You are now leaving earth's orbit...

As Percy says - when you are having to explain the meaning of common everyday words, then it is time to abandon a discussion.
Good luck, RAZD - he's all yours.


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 50 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 6:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 52 of 211 (632875)
09-10-2011 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Stage 3: the questions of alternatives, 1st the zero point issue
Hi Dawn Bertot

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.

Ambivalence is not an action either, but that doesn't mean anything, because [willing] and [able] are not actions either: the action is the response, not the elements that control whether the response is made. they are not verbs.

... The question is were they willing and able to toss the coin. The answer is yes.

Let's say it isn't a matter of being willing or unwilling, that it's part of their programing, like the response of a sunflower to the presence or absence of sunlight: when confronted with a situation that their a priori programing does not provide an answer for, they toss a coin. Then they add that result to their programing for future use (if the choice results in death then selection favors those that got the other coin toss and survived - with that result added to their programing).

it does not matter the subjective actions the coin might produce, ...

Actions are not subjective.

... because they cannot make a subjective decision if they dont toss the coin.

And they don't make a subjective decision if they DO toss the coin -- the coin determines the answer.

... the question is were they willing and able to toss the coin

But they aren't willing and they aren't unwilling, it's like they are programed to toss the coin and then abide by the results. They will always toss the coin in such situations, and let the coin determine their actions.

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

No, I wouldn't. Apathy and ambivalence do not mean willing or unwilling.

ambivalence:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambivalence
quote:
-noun
1. uncertainty or fluctuation, especially when caused by inability to make a choice or by a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite or conflicting things.

and

- n
the simultaneous existence of two opposed and conflicting attitudes, emotions, etc


ie - neither willing nor not willing, but conflicted, uncertain.



willing
not[willing]
ambivalent
willing and ambivalent
not[willing] and ambivalent
not[ambivalent]
willing and not[ambivalent]
not[willing] & not[ambivalent]

You can't be both [willing] AND [ambivalent]
You can't be both not[willing] AND [ambivalent]
You can, however, be not[ambivalent] and be EITHER [willing] OR not[willing]

In other words, to be either [willing] OR not[willing] you cannot be ambivalent.

apathy:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apathy
quote:
noun
1. absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement.
2. lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting.

and

- n
1. absence of interest in or enthusiasm for things generally considered interesting or moving
2. absence of emotion


ie - neither willing nor not willing, but don't care



willing
not[willing]
apathetic
willing and apathetic
not[willing] and apathetic
not[apathetic]
willing and not[apathetic]
not[willing] & not[apathetic]

You can't be both [willing] AND [apathetic]
You can't be both not[willing] AND [apathetic]
You can, however, be not[apathetic] and be EITHER [willing] OR not[willing]

In other words, to be either [willing] OR not[willing] you cannot be apathetic.

Ambivalent and apathetic are like the zero point in math between positive numbers and negative numbers -- it is neither positive nor negative.

This is why I originally showed the following grid in Message 1 and repeated it in 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

When the second ship is ambivalent\apathetic yet able to respond, the question of whether or not a response is made will depend on some other factor, a factor that may be entirely arbitrary, like the toss of a coin.

Now you can argue that zero is a member of the not[positive] numbers, but this would be ignoring that it is also a member of the not[negative] numbers, and that replacing negative numbers with zero in many equations will give rather bizarre results compared to the results for using negative numbers.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : action


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 47 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:55 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 10:35 PM RAZD has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 53 of 211 (632881)
09-10-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
09-10-2011 9:20 PM


Re: Stage 3: the questions of alternatives, 1st the zero point issue
Let's say it isn't a matter of being willing or unwilling, that it's part of their programing, like the response of a sunflower to the presence or absence of sunlight: when confronted with a situation that their a priori programing does not provide an answer for, they toss a coin. Then they add that result to their programing for future use (if the choice results in death then selection favors those that got the other coin toss and survived - with that result added to their programing).

Zen Deist, your a funny guy RAZD. Ablity and inability dont have to do with just people I agree. The flower is either able or unable to accomp-lish its programing

Unless I am missing something i see nothing in your example except able and unable for these properties

But they aren't willing and they aren't unwilling, it's like they are programed to toss the coin and then abide by the results. They will always toss the coin in such situations, and let the coin determine their actions.

What then would the term, in this instance different than willing or able

No, I wouldn't. Apathy and ambivalence do not mean willing or unwilling.

But they do involve able and unable, so they cant and are not something different than willing or able

You can't be both [willing] AND [ambivalent]
You can't be both not[willing] AND [ambivalent]
You can, however, be not[ambivalent] and be EITHER [willing] OR not[willing]

In other words, to be either [willing] OR not[willing] you cannot be ambivalent.

Nonsense, there is always Will, even involved in apathy and ambivalence. You adding to the definition, lack of will, your reading that into it. Nowhere does it say lack of will

[qs]apathy:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apathy

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
noun
1. absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement.
2. lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting.
and

- n
1. absence of interest in or enthusiasm for things generally considered interesting or moving
2. absence of emotion

Would you say these definitions make you unable to make a decision

Now you can argue that zero is a member of the not[positive] numbers, but this would be ignoring that it is also a member of the not[negative] numbers, and that replacing negative numbers with zero in many equations will give rather bizarre results compared to the results for using negative numbers

No I cant argue that because I have no idea what you just said, there nerdarama, just kidding of course

But I do know that Apathy and ambivalence fall under the category of unable, therefore cannot be offered as an example of something different than the only two existing possibilites

I also know you are reading into the definition what you want to be true

Conflicting ideas and lack of desire do not add up to lack of complete will

In other words, to be either [willing] OR not[willing] you cannot be apathetic.

Neither your definitions provided or reason would bare out this point

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2011 9:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Panda, posted 09-10-2011 10:45 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 12:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1908 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 54 of 211 (632882)
09-10-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Stage 3: the questions of alternatives, 1st the zero point issue
[deleted by Panda]

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


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 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 10:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 55 of 211 (632883)
09-10-2011 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 5:20 PM


Stage 3: the question of alternatives - 2nd the other dimensions\words
Hi again Dawn Bertot

IF, they were willing and able to respond (did respond) and made no contact with the ship, they were still willing and able.

It appears (to me) that you are agreeing with Butterflytyrant that the task of the second ship is to respond rather than to communicate.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just a restatement of the issue: are there or are there not other dimensions, other words, that describe other possibilities?

Response is what made them willing and able, its a part of and combination of williing and able, its not something different

No, it's the other way around: response is the action, willing and able make the action possible. Unless there is another option\possibility\word, then these are the only controlling factors to whether or not the action of making a response is taken.

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

And that is the issue of the second question from Stage 3 mentioned in Message 39:

quote:
This is really two questions:

  1. Is there a zero (null) position?

    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?

This was represented in Message 1 by:

quote:
Next, if there is a "Z" position\dimension with it's obverse "not{Z}"


{Z}
willing
ambivalent
not[willing]
able
{Z}, willing & able
reply made

{Z}, ambivalent & able
reply made sometimes\occasionally
{Z}, not[willing] but able
reply not made
not[able]
{Z}, willing but not[able]
reply not made
{Z}, ambivalent but not[able]
reply not made
{Z}, not[willing] & not[able]
reply not made

and


not{Z}
willing
ambivalent
not[willing]
able
not{Z}, but willing & able
reply not made
not{Z}, ambivalent & able
reply not made
not{Z}, not[willing] but able
reply not made
not[able]
not{Z}, willing but not[able]
reply not made
not{Z}, ambivalent but not[able]
reply not made
not{Z}, not[willing] & not[able]
reply not made

Your question is what would this {Z} position\dimension be, yes?

Again, the {Z} position could be anything orthogonal to "willing" and "able", including the use of a coin toss.


The question of ambivalence\apathy is being dealt with in the subthread Message 52, so I will take that out and simplify the grid so we only deal with [able], [willing] and the hypothetical [Z] dimensions\words:


{Z}
willing
not[willing]
able
{Z}, willing & able
reply made

{Z}, not[willing] but able
reply not made
not[able]
{Z}, willing but not[able]
reply not made
{Z}, not[willing] & not[able]
reply not made

and


not{Z}
willing
not[willing]
able
not{Z}, but willing & able
reply not made

not{Z}, not[willing] but able
reply not made
not[able]
not{Z}, willing but not[able]
reply not made
not{Z}, not[willing] & not[able]
reply not made

If you envisage one grid behind the other and expanded in depth to match the width shown, you end up with a cube with eight boxes inside that contain the eight possible combinations of {Z}, not{Z}, able, not[able], willing, and not[willing].

Your question is what would this hypothetical {Z} position\dimension\word be, yes?

I talk about dimensions as a parallel to maths, where this {Z} dimension needs to be orthogonal to the {X} (able) and {Y} (willing) dimensions: the effect of this hypothetical {Z} on the response needs to be independent of the {X} (able) and {Y} (willing) dimensions\words.

I have touched on what I consider to be a viable dimension\word in previous replies:

quote:
Message 40: 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.

The response of the sunflower depends on whether or not it is [able] and whether or not it is [programed] and it is independent of whether the sunflower is [willing] or not.

quote:
Message 39: 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".

Here chance plays a role of a potential {Z}, which is expanded on by

quote:
Message 52:
... The question is were they willing and able to toss the coin. ...

Let's say it isn't a matter of being willing or unwilling, that it's part of their programing, like the response of a sunflower to the presence or absence of sunlight: when confronted with a situation that their a priori programing does not provide an answer for, they toss a coin. Then they add that result to their programing for future use (if the choice results in death then selection favors those that got the other coin toss and survived - with that result added to their programing).

And they don't make a subjective decision if they DO toss the coin -- the coin determines the answer.

But they aren't willing and they aren't unwilling, it's like they are programed to toss the coin and then abide by the results. They will always toss the coin in such situations, and let the coin determine their actions.


A robot or a computer could be programed with a set of instructions for conditions under which a response is given or not. This is independent of whether or not the ship with the robot\computer is [able] or not[able] to make a response.

This is also independent of whether or not the robot\computer is [willing] or not[willing] because they are not able to make subjective choices - they have a programmed choice paradigm: whether it is by the toss of a coin or some other choice mechanism built into the program.

The sunflower program is independent of whether or not the sunflower is [willing] or not[willing] because they are not able to make subjective choices. Their program has been acquired via trial and error, preserving what works in the offspring of the surviving and breeding members of the ancestral populations, and eliminating what doesn't work from the gene pool by failure to survive or reproduce.

Message 52 offers a scenario for how trial and error could be used to develop the program that controls whether the second ship responds or not, one that does not depend in any way on [willing]ness and one that is independent of whether they are [able] to respond or not.

Your new word is [programmed].

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/programed

quote:
1. a plan of action to accomplish a specified end: a school lunch program.
2. a plan or schedule of activities, procedures, etc., to be followed.
...
11. to insert or encode specific operating instructions into (a machine or apparatus): We'll program the bells to ring at ten-minute intervals.
12. to insert (instructions) into a machine or apparatus: An automatic release has been programmed into the lock as a safety feature.
13. to cause to absorb or incorporate automatic responses, attitudes, or the like; condition: Our parents programmed us to respect our elders.

and

A organized system of instructions and data interpreted by a computer. Programming instructions are often referred to as code. See more at source code, See also programming language.


If the second ship (occupants) are programed to respond, willing (to follow the program) and able (to respond), then a response will be sent.

If the second ship (occupants) are programed to NOT respond, yet willing (to follow the program) and able (to respond), then a response will not be sent.

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 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:20 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 11:02 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 11:48 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 56 of 211 (632884)
09-10-2011 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 6:17 PM


Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives
Hi Dawn Bertot

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

You are claiming that this is an irrefutable logical conclusion. In logic, as in math, proofs are possible:

Message 44: Mr Spock, the writer, the script, whoever, whatever accurately, described a logical proposition, the likes of which is irrefutable and irresisitible in its conclusion

If it is irrefutable then you must have a logical proof, not just an opinion, and not just denial of the possibility of other alternatives.

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 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 6:17 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 11:09 PM RAZD has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 57 of 211 (632885)
09-10-2011 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
09-10-2011 10:47 PM


Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives - 2nd the other dimensions\words
I talk about dimensions as a parallel to maths, where this {Z} dimension needs to be orthogonal to the {X} (able) and {Y} (willing) dimensions: the effect of this hypothetical {Z} on the response needs to be independent of the {X} (able) and {Y} (willing) dimensions\words.

Im very impressed RAZD, but please put this POST in simple language so we can all understand

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2011 10:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 1:11 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 58 of 211 (632886)
09-10-2011 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
09-10-2011 11:00 PM


Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives
If it is irrefutable then you must have a logical proof, not just an opinion, and not just denial of the possibility of other alternatives.

The logical proof has been presented. I cannot deny possibilites that do not exist and have not been presented as an alternative, because they are a reproduction of the only two possibiltes or fall squarely within them

Now If i am missing something in your symbolic approach, present it simply

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2011 11:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 2:09 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 59 of 211 (632889)
09-10-2011 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
09-10-2011 10:47 PM


Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives - 2nd the other dimensions\words
A robot or a computer could be programed with a set of instructions for conditions under which a response is given or not. This is independent of whether or not the ship with the robot\computer is [able] or not[able] to make a response.

wrong. programing will only make the robot, able or unable to make a response. if it makes no response. it was unable to respond to an incoming message or hail. If there is no messageor hail, willing and able dont apply anyway

if it makes a faulty response, it was unable

If it responds and no one hears it, it was unable to complete its programing or purpose, even if it is not the computers fault

I think the word programming will not work either

I think the problem you are having is that these two terms are a part of the fabric of existence. To try and avoid that fact is an exercise in futility

But perhaps I am missing something

Dawn bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2011 10:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 3:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 60 of 211 (632892)
09-11-2011 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Stage 3: the questions of alternatives, 1st the zero point issue
Hi again, Dawn Bertot

Ablity and inability dont have to do with just people I agree. The flower is either able or unable to accomp-lish its programing

Not it's programing, it is either able or not able to respond.

It is either programed or not programed to respond.

AND it is neither willing nor unwilling to respond

It can be programed to respond but not able (broken/malnourished/etc) to respond.

It can be not programed (DNA mutation) and able to respond (all other elements needed for the response available and in good working order).

What then would the term, in this instance different than willing or able

Programed.

But they do involve able and unable, so they cant and are not something different than willing or able

No they don't, [able] is not a subjective state, apathy\ambivalence are. They are on the [willing]ness axis, not the [able]ity axis.

Nonsense, there is always Will, even involved in apathy and ambivalence.

Curiously, this is not so, see the definitions.

... You adding to the definition, lack of will, your reading that into it. Nowhere does it say lack of will

Nowhere does it say anything about [will] in either apathy or ambivalence -- you are trying to add that to the definitions.

Would you say these definitions make you unable to make a decision

They affect your (subjective) [willing]ness to respond, not your (technical) [able]ity to respond.

Now you are equivocating -- the [able]ity dimension relates to whether or not you are technically capable of making a response, not whether you are capable of making a decision ...

Message 26 (1) -- What do you mean by "able" (to respond)?

The dictionaries defines "able" to be:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/able
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"?

ie - having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications; qualified to respond

and\or - possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish a response.

The issue of making a decision to respond or not is the part where [willing]ness comes in.

Message 26 (2) -- What do you mean by "willing" (to respond)?

Again, the dictionary definitions for "willing" are:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/willing
quote:
- adjective
1. disposed or consenting; inclined: willing to go along.

and

- adj
1. favourably disposed or inclined; ready


How do you define "willing"?

ie - disposed or consenting, inclined to respond
and\or - favourably disposed or inclined, ready to respond

consenting: choosing to respond.

(Dawn Bertot): 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

You agreed to the definitions.

But I do know that Apathy and ambivalence fall under the category of unable, therefore cannot be offered as an example of something different than the only two existing possibilites

Wrong again.

Curiously, I can be

  1. simultaneously able to drive a car but apathetic about doing so
  2. simultaneously not able to drive a car and apathetic about doing so
  3. simultaneously able to drive a car and not apathetic about doing so
  4. simultaneously not able to drive a car and not apathetic about doing so

Same for ambivalent. [Able]ity to drive the car unrelated to apathy\ambivalence.

In other words, to be either [willing] OR not[willing] you cannot be apathetic.

Neither your definitions provided or reason would bare out this point

Just saying this does not make it so.

Amusingly, I can NOT be

  1. simultaneously willing to drive a car and apathetic about doing so
  2. simultaneously not willing to drive a car and apathetic about doing so

But I CAN be

  1. simultaneously willing to drive a car and not apathetic about doing so
  2. simultaneously not willing to drive a car and not apathetic about doing so

Being Willing is not part of being apathetic\ambivalent
Being Not willing is not part of being apathetic\ambivalent

Being Willing is part of being not apathetic\ambivalent
Being Not willing is part of being not apathetic\ambivalent

A number can't be positive and zero at the same time
A number can't be negative and zero at the same time

A number can be positive and non-zero at the same time
A number can be negative and non-zero at the same time

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 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 10:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019