Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
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:
Apathy Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
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 replied

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

  
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 replied

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

  
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 replied

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

  
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 seen this message but not replied

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

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


(1)
Message 65 of 211 (632962)
09-11-2011 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
09-11-2011 1:11 PM


Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives - 2nd the other dimensions\words
Hi Dawn Bertot, I'm going to combine this response with one for Message 59
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
Thanks. but I'm trying to make it as simple as possible. Let's try some images, rather than a thousand words.
Borrowed from http://etc.usf.edu/...rt/galleries/math/coordinate_grids.php (rather than draw it myself):
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you have a 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}, with four quadrants
1.(+x,+y) in the upper right
2.(+x,-y) in the lower right
3.(-x,+y) in the upper left and
4.(-x,-y) in the lower left
Here we can talk about {X} representing [able]ity, where positive {X} represents able, and negative {X} represents not able ("not" being negative).
And we can talk about {Y} representing [willing]ness, where positive {Y} represents willing, and negative {Y} represents not willing ("not" being negative).
A response is made only if {X} and {Y} are positive. A response is made only if the second ship is [able] to [respond] and [willing] to [respond].
Now we add a new dimension, borrowed from http://forums.runicgames.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7148 (rather than draw it myself)::
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we have taken the previous 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}, with four quadrants, and laid it down on a flat surface, with the new hypothetical {Z} dimension projecting in the vertical direction from the plane of the previous 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}.
The previous 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}, with four quadrants, still exists where the value of {Z} is zero:
1.(+x,+y,0) in the upper right
2.(+x,-y,0) in the lower right
3.(-x,+y,0) in the upper left and
4.(-x,-y,0) in the lower left
It also exists for any value of {Z}. For example if {Z} = 1:
1.(+x,+y,1) in the upper right
2.(+x,-y,1) in the lower right
3.(-x,+y,1) in the upper left and
4.(-x,-y,1) in the lower left
OR if {Z} = -1:
1.(+x,+y,-1) in the upper right
2.(+x,-y,-1) in the lower right
3.(-x,+y,-1) in the upper left and
4.(-x,-y,-1) in the lower left
Now we can talk about {X} representing [able]ity, where positive {X} represents able, and negative {X} represents not able ("not" being negative), as before.
And we can talk about {Y} representing [willing]ness, where positive {Y} represents willing, and negative {Y} represents not willing ("not" being negative), as before.
AND, we can consider if there is an hypothetical {Z} representing something else, some other word that also inhibits or allows a response -- [Z]ness, where positive {Z} represents {something else}, and negative {X} represents not {something else} ("not" being negative).
Now we have eight sectors:
1.(+x,+y,+z) in the top upper right
2.(+x,-y,+z) in the top lower right
3.(-x,+y,+z) in the top upper left and
4.(-x,-y,+z) in the top lower left
and
5.(+x,+y,-z) in the bottom upper right
6.(+x,-y,-z) in the bottom lower right
7.(-x,+y,-z) in the bottom upper left and
8.(-x,-y,-z) in the bottom lower left
A response is made only if {X} and {Y} AND {Z} are positive. A response is made only if the second ship is [able] to [respond] and [willing] to [respond] AND the hypothetical {something else} are all positive.
In Message 55 (and other previous messages) I have mentioned sunflowers:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the sunflowers, {Y} = [willing]ness 0. Something else is controlling whether the sunflower is making a response or not that is independent of [able]ity to [respond]
Kudos to Percy or what ever admin guy is letting us continue, to some what must be a ridiculous discussion
However I find it very hard to believe that you cannot translate all of this symbolic jargon into simple English, consisting of a few lines of your point
What I am more interested in you doing is translating this symbolic jargon into a simple word or concept that is different than willing or able
Thus far you have tried ambivalent, apathy and programming, all of which have failed because they have nothing drectly to do with willing or able. While the are involved, they dont change the limited possibilites
You seem to think that you can weasel either [able]ity or [willing]ness into any other element to make your point. This does not work because the issue is {[able]ity to [respond]} and {[willing]ness to [respond]}. Being [able] and [willing] to tie my shoes does not make me [able] and [willing] to [respond].
The programing of the sunflower will either result in a choice to [respond] or a choice to not[respond] and that choice is independent of the [able]ity of the sunflower to [respond], it is dependent on an additional factor: whether the sun is out or not
Which means it will be either able or unable to complete its programming, correct. By the sunflower responding, I dont mean it is choosing to, I simply mean it will or will not be Able to perform its function
Whatever it does when it is finished doing it, will make it able or unable to complete its programming. So stick that where the sun dont shine, ha ha, just kidding
Re-read your above comment and see if it seems as silly to you, as you as it does to me
Response has nothing to do with the only logical possibilites available for response to fall into
Dont you find it just a little coincidental that in your above comments you can find nothing but able and willing. When you you decide (response) to tie your shoes, you will only be able or unable, willing or able, etc
The programing of the robot will either result in a choice to [respond] or a choice to not[respond] and that choice is independent of the [able]ity of the robot to [respond], but it is dependent on an additional factor: how the program decides whether to respond or not.
It does not matter whether the choice is independant of the mechanism, it will only be able or unable to accomplish its programming
but it is dependent on an additional factor: how the program decides whether to respond or not.
Ok provide the additional term that will not mean able or unable
Outside circumstnaces have nothing to do with the limitations of able and unable. Thats already set by reality, you cant change it.
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 63 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 1:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 1:50 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


(1)
Message 66 of 211 (632966)
09-11-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Butterflytyrant
09-11-2011 3:21 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Just to make sure you are clear on my position with regards to the use of the words willing and able. At no stage have I ever had any complaint or comment with regards to the usage of these two words - willing, able. I have no idea why you keep trying to tell me that I need to come up with different versions of these words or focus on these words as they have no relevance to my arguement. They never have. At all. Ever.
great then we agree that there can be no other area into which respons can fall, except willing or able.
I kept trying to tell you that because you seemed to be disagreeing with my orignal contention
Great, so we, atleast with you, have solved that problem
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 3:21 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 6:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


(1)
Message 70 of 211 (632999)
09-11-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Butterflytyrant
09-11-2011 6:38 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
At no stage has this problem existed. It seems that you have created this problem. You have discussed it with yourself. Now you are suggesting that a problem that never existed has been resolved.
This has always been my position and now it seems you are starting to see what I was saying. Whether there was a problem that existed or not, is neither here nor there
However, if you read my example I am clearly stating what I have maintained all along.
You have not provided two more examples anymore than RAZD has. As I pointed out to you it never mattered whether the 2nd ship was willing or able, that was never the point, so you manufactured a scenario that didnt exist.
response, communication, anbivalence. apathy or programming do not affect the outcome of any response. It will always just be able or unable
There are more than the two options that Spock put forward.
Thats impossible, because no example you provided will be anything other than willing or able, or a combination of the two.
At no stage have I ever claimed that there was any issue with the words willing and able. There is no problem for us to agree or disagree upon with these two words. In our discussion, that issue has been created by you, discussed by you and now apparently solved by you.
You did not understand the point of the conversation when you started
You mistook that I meant that Spocks statement meant that they hadnt responded and werent able or willing.
That was never my meaning. My meaning was that regardless of who did what, whenever, however, whereever, those responses would only fall into two categories
You should have paid attention to the part of his statement that said, "There are only two logical possibilites" Thats the important part, not "They are unwilling to respond, they are unable to respond". The first part of his comment directs the second part of his comment
The logical possibilites is the most important part
he was absolutely correct, because there are no other areas or categories of why they did not respond, even if they did
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 6:38 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 11:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


(1)
Message 73 of 211 (633002)
09-11-2011 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
09-11-2011 10:30 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
ously, Dawn Bertot said that it made them unable.
At any rate it is one of the two, unwillingness will probably translate into unwilling
Spocks point of view is unimportant, whether they responded or not is unimportant
The first part of the statement is what needs to be addressed, because is more important than the second. The second part is relatively unimportant, unless one wishes a seperate conversation
concering, respon and commuincate, etc
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 10:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 11:08 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 1:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 76 of 211 (633020)
09-12-2011 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Butterflytyrant
09-11-2011 11:02 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
I am not starting to see your position at all. You have been rambling on about willing and able in a conversation with yourself when it has never, ever had anything to do with my position. You and I have not, at any stage had a discussion about the problems with the words willing or able.
stupid me and I thought it was I that had started this discussion. Im glad you cleared up what I thought I meant and what I thought I was doing. Excuse me for not recognizing your preconcieved misconception
I am fully aware that the entire paragraph I have just written will not be clear enough for you.
Oh its very clear, it speaks volumes about you
The task, in your example was to respond
Look through any of my verbage and see if I said respond was the point of my example
Here are the two alternates I provided way back on [msg=631041]. I have provided these examples on multiple occasions now.
Your examples might be valid if the task or my point was did they respond, its not. Since both of these examples do not explain another concept besides the two , they are invalid
In both of my examples, the 2nd craft was both willing and able to respond. Spock said that the only two options were that the 2nd craft was either unwilling or unable to respond. I have provided two examples where the 2nd craft is both willing and able to respond. Your example is refuted, twice.
Yes but before this he said there are only two logical possibilites, thats the point of the discussion
I have never had any issue with the words willing or able. I believe that I have told you this enough times now that every time you bring it up I am justified in calling you a fucking moron. You have not stated that you have a learning disbility to this is the only option left
I got a belly laugh from this statement. It is so funny because your like the guy standing right in front of something and not seeing it
RAZD has abaandoned it because he knows he has no solution
I did pay attention. I paid attention enough to realise that there are not only two logical possilities. I have provided another two. Making at least 4 possibilites. You provided an example. I have refuted your example. If your example did not mean what you actually wanted it to mean that is your error, not mine.
You have given two examples of something that doesnt directly apply t the point at hand
Lets go with your examples. Please show how what they did does not mean or fall under willing or able
Sprock said there are ONLY two logical possibilites, willing and able. Those are the focus of the logical limitations, not response. there are an inumerable types of responses, but they are limited by willingness and capability
No other terms can be provided that dont mean the samething
Anyway thanks for participating in what some might see as a pointless endeavor
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 11:02 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

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


(1)
Message 77 of 211 (633022)
09-12-2011 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Butterflytyrant
09-11-2011 11:08 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Funnily enough. The conversation I have been having this entire time was in relation to respond and communicate.
You may have noticed by the sheer volume of references to the words "respond" and "communicate".
And the large number of times I have said that I am talking about response and communication.
And the times I have supplied you with the definitions of respond and communicate.
And the times that I have told you that I am not talking about willing and able.
All the times when I have directed you to focus on the words respond and communicate.
All the times when I have had to repeat myself over and over again saying that I am talking about response and communication and nothing else.
You know, all of those times (every, single fucking post) when I have said that I am talking about your issues with the words respond and communicate.'
Have one of the grammarians here at the site break down Spook's statement and see what the focus of "two logical possibilites " are, Willing and Able, or respond
That should clue you in
And the times I have supplied you with the definitions of respond and communicate.
I tried to explain many times that these two items are what decide if it will be Willing or Able, there not something seperate, as alternatives to Willing and Able. You seemed to pay no attention
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 11:08 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-12-2011 10:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 80 of 211 (633131)
09-12-2011 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Butterflytyrant
09-12-2011 10:57 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Now, lets try hard to look for the task in the sentence
Im not interested in the task in the sentence, I agree with that task in the sentence Im interested in the task of the logical conclusion that any response or no response, will involve something more than willing or able
It does not matter what the second ship did or did not do. It only matters that anything that they did do can not be described by any terms other than willing or able
provide a word, based on a what they did, that will not fall under willing or able
It does not matter what the enterprise did or did not do, whether they were right or wrong
Provide a word for any of thier actions or inaction that will be different than willing or able
it doesnt exist
Spocks logical possibility one - "they are unable to respond".
Spocks logical possibility two - "they are unwilling to respond"
My logical possibility three - The second craft has responded, but the Enterprise has not detected this response.
My logical possibility three - The second craft is not aware that was hailed in the first place so they send no response.
great now find a word that will be different than willing or able, that is described in any of the second ships actions
A respose BT is either willing, able, or just willing and unable or unwilling but able, its not something different than the only two. Response IS AN ACTION THAT WILL BE DESCRIBED BY ONLY THOSE TWO CONCEPTS
An action, (Response or communication) , is either able or unable. These two concepts and the reality of it decide whether the action is sucessful or unsucessful
if you think it is not, give me the alternate word
A communication is exacally the samething I desribed above, it is not something differentm it cannot be used as an alternate concept of reality
In my logical possibility four, the second craft is both willing and able to respond. Thus refuting Spock (and your) claim that the only options are unwilling and unable to respond.
It cant get any simpler than that.
Im not disagreeing as to whether Spock was right or wrong, ALTHOUGH HE WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Even if he did not know they had responded. His point was not that they had not made an attempt, his point was that the only two logical possibilites was limiting them from recieving that attempted response, you mallethead
The options are not unwilling or unable to respond, you idiot, even though he worded it in that manner, its that something is making it unable to get to the ship, therefore unable and maybe unwilling
Any actions on either side will fall under either category, thats his only point
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-12-2011 10:57 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:22 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 98 of 211 (633334)
09-13-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
09-13-2011 1:12 PM


Re: ... haven't had the time yet to respond due to other higher priorities
CS writes
I replied to that and then you posted a bunch of pictures of dorks...
Thats funny
ways amuses me when people say things like this. Curiously I am busy with many projects and do not have time to hang on your every post and assertion, and then get into a fetid rush to respond. Amusingly,
yeah I knew you probably had not abandoned it, I was just doing that to pull you back in just incase you had. Ill get to your latest comments as soon as possible
a bunch of Dorks, that funny. I guess Spock would have to be the real dork observing sex only every seven years, now thats a dork Amok time
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 1:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 99 of 211 (633342)
09-13-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Butterflytyrant
09-13-2011 8:22 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Some even made suggestions on how to improve on your example.
Would it help if I got some children to help you understand the mistake you are making?
If children can get it, you should be able to as well.
That would be great, but as far as I can see, you still have not, after may explanations seen the point I am making.
Ill try again. Forget what the task of the crew on either side was, forget whether they were able or unable to respond or communicate
Forget the grammar of the sentence.
Answer this simple question. Would any actions on either side of the scenario fall under a term that is not decribed by willing or able. Provide that word, concept or phrase that is different than those two
This is your only task. No lectures please
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:22 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

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


(1)
Message 101 of 211 (633346)
09-13-2011 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Butterflytyrant
09-13-2011 8:25 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Reuh writes
If he had instead choosen communicate, than he would have been correct. However in choosing respond it allows for additional possibilities that unable or unwilling do not cover.
BT writes:
But DB is a little hard to explain basic word usage to.
I hope if he reads your post, perhaps the wording you have used may help it sink in.
Cheers,
It seems that RAZD is the only one on the opposing side undersatanding what the actual argument and contention concerns
IT IS NOT ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF THE SCENARIO ITSELF. Its not about whether Spock was right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate. its about the logical implications concerning the words Willing and Able.
Forget about the TV scenario, thats not the point, you simplistic knucklehead. Ha Ha, just kidding
Can another word concept or idea that is a part of reality, describe thier actions besides Willing or able
Here is a hint. RAZD has tried ambivalent and apathy. His problem is that he has assumed that where there is ambivalence or apathy there is no will. He has assumed this, he has not demonstrated it
For his contention and example of these words to catagorize another area, he first needs to establish that one has no Will at all, even when apathetic, or approaching apathy
Of course he cant do this, because even ambivalence is a choice and apathy still involes will. therefore, those individuals are unable to make a decision because they CHOOSE not to.
That is how ambivalence and apathy work in conjunction with Will. They are not independant of it as his argument implies
How in the world can he show that apathy does not involve some Will. Does the mind quit working when one is apathetic.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:25 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 5:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 11:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 103 of 211 (633354)
09-13-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Panda
09-13-2011 5:39 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
x
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Panda, posted 09-13-2011 5:39 PM Panda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024