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

Hi again Dawn BertotIt appears (to me) that you are agreeing with Butterflytyrant that the task of the second ship is to respond rather than to communicate. 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? 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. 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	, 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

​

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	, willing & able reply made	, not[willing] but able reply not made
not[able]	, willing but not[able] reply not made	, 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].Program Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

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.

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

Hi again, Dawn BertotNot 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 respondIt 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). Programed. 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. Curiously, this is not so, see the definitions. Nowhere does it say anything about [will] in either apathy or ambivalence -- you are trying to add that to the definitions. 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 ... ie - having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications; qualified to respondand\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. ie - disposed or consenting, inclined to respond
and\or - favourably disposed or inclined, ready to respondconsenting: choosing to respond. You agreed to the definitions. 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. 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

3. simultaneously willing to drive a car and not apathetic about doing so
4. 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\ambivalentBeing Willing is part of being not apathetic\ambivalent
Being Not willing is part of being not apathetic\ambivalentA number can't be positive and zero at the same time
A number can't be negative and zero at the same timeA number can be positive and non-zero at the same time
A number can be negative and non-zero at the same timeEnjoy.

Hi Dawn Bertot, I'm going to combine this response with one for Message 59Thanks. but I'm trying to make it as simple as possible. Let's try some images, rather than a thousand words.Borrowed from Coordinate Grids | ClipArt ETC (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]Again, we look at the sunflower, where we have these possible scenarios:

[willing]ness ≡ 0	[programed] to [respond]	not[programed] to [respond]
[able] to [respond]	[programed] & [able] to [respond] response made	not[programed] but [able] to [respond] response not made
not[able] to [respond]	[programed] but not[able] to [respond] response not made	not[programed] & not[able] to [respond] response not made

The [program] to [respond] can be lost by genetic defect while the [able]ity to [respond] remains intact.The [able]ity to [respond] can be lost by genetic defect while the [program] to [respond] remains intact. Let's now talk about equivocation in the meanings of [able] and [willing] and the relation to [respond].I am either [able] or not[able] to tie my shoes.
I am either [willing] or not[willing] to tie my shoes.If both are positive then I am [able] and [willing] to tie my shoes.This does not make me [able] and [willing] to [respond].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.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. The [able]ity to [respond] is independent of the [program]ing to respond. The decision whether or not to [respond] is not determined by the [able]ity to respond, but by the [program]ing regarding whether or not to [respond].[program]ing is a viable alternative explanation for lack of response from the second ship.Enjoy.

---

... actually there are more cases for the sunflower programming issue: The sunflower is either [able] or un[able] to respond, depending on its genetics, development, nutrition etc.The sunflower is either [programmed] or not[programmed] to respond, depending on its genetics, development, nutrition etc.If [programmed] the sunflower reacts one way (turns) to positive inputs, and a different way (does not turn) to negative inputs, inputs that can vary from minute to minute.Edited by RAZD, : added at bottom - reference Message 180

Hi Dawn Bertot, I must have missed it -- can you link to the post or repost it?Thanks

Hi Catholic Scientist,Thanks for the script clip, it helps to know the specific context. Curiously, Dawn Bertot said that it made them unable.Enjoy.

Hi Dawn BertotWhether or not they respond is the issue. It always 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,

• I am willing to respond
• I am able to respond
• but I haven't had the time yet to respond due to other factors impacting my life -- that are a higher priority.

This of course, is another possibility to explain the lack of response during the time when Spock et al were monitoring for a response ...... which you likely will disagree with (given past responses in this line), and you will try to reformulate my prioritizing of the various tasks in my life to claim that I am either unable or unwilling ... but that is a false answer, because you are trying to change the definitions of the words to fit your perception.I am also working on another way to show what I mean, so you may need to wait a while to have your requested simplification of the visual aids. No, the first part modifies the second part, they are the adjectives that modify the action verb, and thus you cannot separate them and talk about anything but the definitions of the words. This we have already done in Message 26 and your agreement with them in Message 30: Here we see that TIME is another word/element: do they have time to respond, or is their time needed for more critical tasks (like survival, perhaps).EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : [time] gives the time? fascinating.

Hi again Dawn BertotI am working on making it simpler, you will need to wait until I have the time to spend on it. This is NOT a high priority in my life: your failure to understand seems to be singularly yours, rather than a general condition (I have had no other complaints). All of which you have failed to refute except by assertion of your opinion. Curiously assertion of an opinion does not make it fact, nor is it capable of altering reality. Curiously, that is precisely the point: they have nothing to do with [able]ity or with [willing]ness, but they have everything to do with [respond]ing.Thank you for admitting that. No, Dawn Bertot, it doesn't mean that at all, it is still able to complete the programing whether it responds or not.The response is governed by an external stimulus: if the stimulus is present the sunflower completes it programing by responding - if it is [able] to respond -- AND if the stimulus is NOT present the sunflower STILL completes it programing by NOT responding - whether it is [able] to respond or not.This can be tested by taking a sunflower inside and seeing if it responds when it is deprived of external input -- sunlight -- and then turning on artificial lights that match sunlight and seeing if it responds. When it does respond to the artificial light then we can be sure that it was able to respond before and that the lack of stimulus is what prevented the response. Either way the program is executed, the [able]ity of the sunflower to respond is not impaired or affected by the sunflower completing its program, it is the presence or lack of presence of the external stimulus that affects whether the program executes a response or it executes a non-response. No, it affects what the result of executing the program is, and it has nothing to do with the [able]ity of the ship to respond.This is the program: Explain how the mere existence of this program affects the ability of the second ship to respond. In simple words or diagrams ...Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : program

Hi again Catholic Scientist That doesn't affect the (technical) [able]ity to make a response, it affects whether a decision is made, or not, to respond or not respond. But that isn't what ambivalent means. Message 52:

quote:

---

Apathy and ambivalence do not mean willing or unwilling.

​

ambivalence:
Ambivalence Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

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:
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

---

​

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

---

The ambivalence\apathy affect whether a decision to respond is made or a decision to not respond is made. The second ship could be highly conflicted whether to respond or not and thus have not yet decided to respond. Perhaps they are highly paranoid and fear the results of either path. post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, (also begging the question, affirming the consequent).
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/posthoc.htmAt the end of the day, a response was not made: why that response was not made has not been determined.

• Was it inability?
• Was it unwillingness?
• Was a response made but not received?
• Was it paranoid ambivalence that sees both response and non-response as equally bad for the second ship? (neither willing nor unwilling, but stuck between them)
• Was it complete apathy that sees neither response nor non-response as being of any particular value for the second ship? (neither willing nor unwilling but stuck between them)
• Was it an automatic program in the ship that did not receive the proper input stimulus (a clearance code?) for a response to be sent?
• Was it lack of available time, with higher priority tasks (like simple survival) such that they just don't have time to spend on a response? Able to respond, willing to respond, not sure if there is enough time for response and other high priority tasks (and was it their conclusion in evaluating priorities that a response was a low priority, as they were sure the Enterprise would investigate further if none was received, so the time would be better spent on surviving until then?)

These are just some of the many possibilities.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : low priority vs high priority tasks

Everyone,Let's cut out the personal attacks. They detract from the arguments and only encourage further [i]ad hominum[/u]s.I continue to mark posts [cheer] if they address the topic in good debate manner, and [jeer] if they contain any attacks on others, whether they originate in the post or are in reply to attacks in other posts.Enjoy.

Hi rueh, and welcome to the debate. Think of it as the zero position between positive willing and negative willing -- it is neither positive nor negative.If at the end of the day you say "oh what the heck" and toss a coin to determine whether or not to respond, then would that be willing or not willing?Same with apathy. They may ask "is a response necessary? or will the Enterprise crew investigate further in any event? Would a lack of response affect the behavior of the Enterprise in any negative way?"Enjoy.

Hi again Catholic Scientist Then you are rejecting the definitions of willing and ambivalent in order to assume you are correct. No, I am willing to do it fourth on my list of prioritized tasks. I somehow feel that survival is more important than response, so once I get that solved I can move on to making a response.What in that statement says I will not make a response? What in that statement says I cannot make a response?I don't wait up all night for posts here so I can rush out a response - does that make me unwilling to respond? I leave my computer hooked up and on, so that I can use it to work on any number of tasks, at any time I chose to: does that make me unable to respond? AND if they were too scared to NOT respond, then by your logic they were willing.If they are paranoid ambivalent, scared about the consequences of EITHER action, then what does that make them? Ambivalent. False. Getting the response to the enterprise is not the task, making a response is the task.They were able to respond, they were willing to respond, a response was made but the ship did not send it because the Enterprise did not have the proper security measures and clearance codes.The ship is a high security research vessel with a simple program: Explain how the mere existence of this program affects

1. the ableness of the people in the second ship to formulate a response, have the equipment to send it, and the skills to operate the equipment:
   ​
   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>

   ---

   ​
   and
   ​
2. the willingness of the people in the second ship to make a response
   ​
   Willing Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

   quote:

   ---

   - adjective
   1. disposed or consenting; inclined: willing to go along.

   ​

   and

   ​

   - adj
   1. favourably disposed or inclined; ready

   ---

The program reacts to the existence or absence of the proper security measures and clearance codes, the program does not have [able]ity to respond, it does not have [willing]ness to respond, as those must come from the crew, so a response is only sent IF:

1. the people in the second ship have the ability to formulate a response and have the equipment to send it
2. the people in the second ship have the willingness to make a response
   AND
3. the Enterprise is using the proper security measures and clearance codes
   to communicate with the people in the second ship.

All three conditions must be met for a response to be sent from the second ship. The first two depend on the crew, while the third depends on an external factor that the crew of the second ship have no control over - whether or not the Enterprise is using the proper security measures and clearance codes. Review the definitions above and show how they meet those definitions.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarity

Hi Catholic Scientist In other words you are not using the definitions agreed to by others, including Dawn Bertot, to apply lesser common usage Yeah, right - these make sense:

1. I am done to go to work
2. I am given to go to work
3. I am borne to go to work
4. I am used to go to work
5. I am with cheerful readiness to go to work

the jilted syntax should be the give away here that these definitions are not replacements for [willing] in these sentences.vs

quote:

---

—adjective
1. disposed or consenting; inclined: willing to go along.

---

1. I am disposed to go to work
2. I am consenting to go to work
3. I am inclined to go to work

and

quote:

---

2. cheerfully consenting or ready: a willing worker.

---

1. I am cheerfuly consenting to go to work
2. I am ready to go to work

Oh good, let's try to substitute a different word, a verb instead of an adjective. Why don't you go down to the legal definition?

quote:

---

1 : to order or direct by will < will ed that his money be given to charity>
2 : to dispose of by will < will ed the house to their children>

---

This is called equivocation: you need to use the same meaning that fits with the usage and not a meaning that doesn't, you need to consistently use the same meaning when talking about responding. Which is what the definitions that make sense in the phrase in question mean.They are willing to respond:

1. They are disposed to respond
2. They are consenting to respond
3. They are inclined to respond

1. They are cheerfuly consenting to respond
2. They are ready to respond

which all make sense
vs your definition

1. They are done to respond
2. They are borne to respond
3. They are used to respond
   ​
   which don't make much sense to me, and
   ​
4. They are given to respond
5. They are with cheerful readiness to respond

which are like the meanings in definitions 1 and 2 above.So I don't see any of the definition saying that the completion of a task as part of the definition. And, fortunately (for me), the meaning of the word [willing] that makes sense in the phrase includes these meaningsdisposed, consenting, inclined, ready, even given,but does not (imho) include these meaningsdone, borne, usedGetting it done does not belong in [willing]ness. This is called begging the question: you assume that [able]ity and [willing]ness are the only options, so if you can't shoe-horn a different possibility into one, then it must come under the other.Logic doesn't work that way. No, it means they were neither [willing] nor [unwilling], that they were ambivalent, conflicted, and could not decide in the time taken. Poppycock. The word used was [respond] not [communicate], and if you are going to argue about the character of Spock as indicating meaning, then I suggest to you that Spock would not make an error in the choice of the words used. If you are going to untether [able] and [willing] from [respond] then in all cases they were both [able] and [willing] to do a number of tasks (breath, eat, touch, etc), and the concept of them being [unable] or [unwilling] becomes absolutely meaningless.The words are adjectives, not verbs, and adjectives don't DO things, verbs are the action elements ... [respond] is the action in this case, it is what gets done or not done. Sorry to break it to you, but Spock is a fictional character. The actor, Leonard NImoy is quite a different character (and quite nice when I met him at one of those "dork" conventions ... ), as he sings, dances and (gasp) cries. Then you are misusing it to mean things that are not in the definitions.Even if the task had been [communication] instead of [willing], the term [willing] would still not mean accomplishing the task, but disposed, consenting, inclined, ready, even given, to communicate.You're confusing (imho) the part of the issue that belongs under [able]ity with those that belong under [willing]ness:From Message 26:

quote:

---

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>

---

---

Having the necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications to respond,But they still do not depend on actually getting the task done, they just mean you have the ability to get the task done.You need to think of it as a number of switches that all need to be on for the lights to come on. The question is how many switches are involved.Enjoy.

Hi Dawn Bertot,Here is my simplified graphic, let's see if this helps: Notes:

1. If the ship is a high security research vessel that requires proper security codes and procedures to be met before communication is permitted between the crew and any external source, then the ship could have blocked the incoming transmission from the crew.
2. This is the original "unable to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unable, this is where it shows up.
3. This is the original "unwilling to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unwilling, this is where it shows up.
4. This is the issue of time, both the time alloted by the "Spock" character before he reaches his conclusions, AND the time taken by the crew of the second vessel to respond, whether the time taken is due to apathy\ambivalence in making a decision or whether they are busy on something they feel is necessary for their survival and that has a higher priority than making a response at that time. Making a response could be next on their list of prioritized tasks that they are able and willing to tackle in the time they have.
5. This is the "sunflower" issue, whether or not there is a program that decides whether or not the response is allowed (ie sent - see note 1), irrespective of the ableness and willingness of the crew to make a response.
6. This is the issue built into the programing: if the proper input is received communication to and from the vessel is allowed, however if the proper input is not received communication is blocked. Note that this is dependent on the Enterprise knowing and using the proper procedures and not on the ableness or willingness of the crew. The crew can be fully cognizant of the security requirements, completely able to respond if they are met and fully willing to respond if they are met.
7. This is NOT part of the response from the second vessel, but it IS part of the issue of why the Enterprise has not detected a response from the vessel.

Note in particular that all the items that are NOT in the control of the crew do NOT affect their ableness or willingness to respond. Remember that the original comment by the "Spock" character was that not response was detected because of either one of two reasons:

1. the CREW was unable to respond
   OR
2. the Crew was unwilling to respond.]

As we can easily see from this flow chart there are several other possibilities that were not considered.QEDEnjoy.

Hi Dawn Bertot,This is where it gets amusing for me. Response is inextricably part of the issue, failure to include it makes this meaningless --- here's why:The crew of the second ship were able to tie their shoes
The crew of the second ship were willing to tie their shoes
They are therefore both able and willing -- according to your position that response is not the point
So why did the Enterprise not receive a response?By unlinking the adjectives from the verb you make them tautological:You can always find something where the crew is able
You can always find something where the crew is willing
You can always find something where the crew is UNable
You can always find something where the crew is UNwillingSo you can cherry pick which "somethings" you want to get whatever result you want.That's dishonest. No, it was always able. It's really very very simple:

1. Take the sunflower inside, into a room with no windows and with diffuse ambient light similar to a blue sky
2. Put it in a pot with automatic watering and nutrient provisions.
3. Bring a sunlamp into the room.
4. Turn the sunlamp on.
5. The sunflower responds by turning towards the sunlamp.
6. Move the sunlamp (at a speed to match the apparent speed of the sun in the sky).
7. The sunflower responds by turning with the lamp.
8. Turn the sunlamp off.
9. The sunflower does nothing.
10. Move the sunlamp back to it's original position at the same speed.
11. The sunflower does nothing.
12. Turn the lamp on.
13. The sunflower responds by turning towards the sunlamp.
14. Move the sunlamp at the same speed as before.
15. The sunflower responds by turning with the lamp.
16. Turn the sunlamp off.
17. The sunflower does nothing.
18. Move the sunlamp back to it's original position at the same speed.
19. The sunflower does nothing.
20. Turn the lamp on etc etc etc

We have these results:

1. The sunflower is able to respond to light from a sunlamp:
   • The sunflower moves to face the sunlamp whenever the light is turned on, whenever the lamp is moved.
2. The sunflower retains the ablility to respond to light from a sunlamp even when the lamp is off:
   • We know it did not lose the ability to respond to light from a sunlamp, because it moves to face the sunlamp whenever the light is turned on.
   • We know theability of the sunflower to move to face an on sunlamp does not change when the sunlamp is off, because the position of the sunlamp and the light from the lamp are not part of the sunflower and they are not under the control of the sunflower.
   • I can be able to ride a bicycle, but unwilling to do it in the rain: if it is raining, then the reason I won't bicycle is because I am unwilling, not because I am unable - in an emergency I could still ride in the rain. I don't lose the ability to ride a bicycle if it is raining.
   ​
   but we also have these results:
   ​
3. The sunflower does respond to the position of the sunlamp when the lamp is on
   • The sunflower moves to face the sunlamp whenever the light is turned on.
4. The sunflower does not respond to the position of the sunlamp when the lamp is off
   • The sunflower does not move to face the sunlamp whenever the light is turned off.

What is the difference between (c) and (d)?The sunflower is able: in both (a) and (b) the sunflower is exactly the same plant, with exactly the same ability, as defined in Message 26 and with which you agreed:

quote:

---

... 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"?

---

You agreed to those definitions for [able] in Message 30: The sunflower is able according to those definitions, it is tested and the ability is verified ...... there is no willing (sunflowers lack the brainpower necessary to make subjective decisions) ...... so what causes a difference in the response between (c) and (d)? Please don't use quotes when you change the meaning of my statements to fit your pleasure\opinion\belief. If you are going to paraphrase then say so.The lack of stimulus is not part of the sunflower, it is external. The sunflower is the same whether there is a sunlamp on or not. It has all the light (the diffuse ambient light), nutrients and water it needs to live, grow and thrive. It has all the necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications; it has all the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity; it is possessed of all the needed powers and needed resources to accomplish the objective ... it is able to respond to sunlight whenever it is called on to do so. Yes:How does the presence or absence of light from the sunlamp affect the movement of the sunflower to face the location of the sunlamp?... it's not unable, ... it's not unwilling, ... it must be something else.Enjoy