|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 was represented in Message 1 by:
quote: 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:
and
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: 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: Here chance plays a role of a potential {Z}, which is expanded on by
quote: 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: 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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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:
Able Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: 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:
Willing Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: How do you define "willing"? ie - disposed or consenting, inclined to respondand\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
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
But I CAN be
Being Willing is not part of being apathetic\ambivalentBeing Not willing is not part of being apathetic\ambivalent Being Willing is part of being not apathetic\ambivalentBeing Not willing is part of being not apathetic\ambivalent A number can't be positive and zero at the same timeA number can't be negative and zero at the same time A number can be positive and non-zero at the same timeA number can be negative and non-zero at the same time Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 Coordinate Grids | ClipArt ETC (rather than draw it myself):
quote: Here you have a 2-dimensional grid of {X} vs {Y}, with four quadrants
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:
It also exists for any value of {Z}. For example if {Z} = 1:
OR if {Z} = -1:
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:
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: 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] Message 59: 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 Again, we look at the sunflower, where we have these possible scenarios:
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.
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 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.
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 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 180by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
The logical proof has been presented. I must have missed it -- can you link to the post or repost it? Thanksby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist,
Thanks for the script clip, it helps to know the specific context.
But I do think that the way Spock was talking, he would consider ambivalence to be unwillingness. Curiously, Dawn Bertot said that it made them unable. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dawn Bertot
Spocks point of view is unimportant, whether they responded or not is unimportant Whether or not they respond is the issue.
Message 76: RAZD has abaandoned it because he knows he has no solution 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,
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.
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 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:
I am fine with these definitions, all I need is another word ... 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). Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : [time] gives the time? fascinating.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Dawn Bertot
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 I 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).
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 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.
... because they have nothing drectly to do with willing or able.... 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.
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 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.
Which means it will be either able or unable to complete its programming, 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:
if the proper stimulus is present, then respond else (if the proper stimulus is not present then) do not respond 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, : programby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Catholic Scientist
I suppose there's a bit of an overlap; if you were so ambivalent that you just couldn't bring yourself to do it, then I could call that 'unable'. 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.
I suppose there's a bit of an overlap; if you were so ambivalent that you just couldn't bring yourself to do it, then I could call that 'unable'. But that isn't what ambivalent means. Message 52:
quote: 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.
But at the end of the day, you didn't get it done. So you either couldn't or you wouldn't. post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, (also begging the question, affirming the consequent).http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/posthoc.htm At the end of the day, a response was not made: why that response was not made has not been determined.
These are just some of the many possibilities. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : low priority vs high priority tasksby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi rueh, and welcome to the debate.
If ambivalent means a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite or conflicting things. Then couldn't you be ambivalent and be willing and not willing at the same time? These are two opposite or conflicting things. In which case wouldn't the ultimate state of either being willing or not willing just rest on what the final decision to your ambivalence is? Or if no decision is reached wouldn't that have the same outcome as not willing? 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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Catholic Scientist
I would say that if you were ambivalent, and didn't get it done, then you weren't willing to get it done. Then you are rejecting the definitions of willing and ambivalent in order to assume you are correct.
If you don't respond because other factors are more important, then you are unwilling to repspond. You may have wanted to, but you weren't willing to actually do it. I think this is a difference between our word usage, where you're saying that wanting to but not is still "willing" to do it. I'm saying that even if you wanted to but you didn't, then you weren't really willing to. 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?
If they were too scared to respond, then they were unwilling to. 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.
Unable. They weren't capable of getting the reponse to the Enterprise. 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:
if the proper security measures and clearance codes are present, then allow communication else (if the proper security measures and clearance codes are not present then) do not allow communication Explain how the mere existence of this program affects
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:
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.
I'm still not convinced any of those fall outside of unable or unwilling. Review the definitions above and show how they meet those definitions. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clarityby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist
Au contraire, I am using a different definition: From your online dictionary: In other words you are not using the definitions agreed to by others, including Dawn Bertot, to apply lesser common usage
quote: Yeah, right - these make sense:
the jilted syntax should be the give away here that these definitions are not replacements for [willing] in these sentences. vs
quote:
and
quote:
And further down: 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: 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.
So yeah, your definition is more about wanting to do it... Which is what the definitions that make sense in the phrase in question mean. They are willing to respond:
which all make sensevs your definition
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.
You may still have the desire to repond, but you have not brought it about. In the sense of your desire, you are willing to respond, but in the sense bringing it about, you were unwilling. And, fortunately (for me), the meaning of the word [willing] that makes sense in the phrase includes these meanings disposed, consenting, inclined, ready, even given, but does not (imho) include these meanings done, borne, used Getting it done does not belong in [willing]ness.
My definition is about getting it done. If you don't get it done, and you were able, then you were unwilling. 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.
But that would mean the the Enterpirse had received the response, which they did not. And unwilling (in the sense of bringing it about) to respond. No, it means they were neither [willing] nor [unwilling], that they were ambivalent, conflicted, and could not decide in the time taken.
No, Spock was talking about them getting their reponse to the Enterprise. He wasn't considering that maybe they were just stuck in their ship shouting really loudly in an attempt to "respond". 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.
It doesn't matter what said task is, if you didn't get it done then you couldn't or you wouldn't... you are unable or unwilling. 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.
Me, and Spock, are/were not using the word "willing" to mean a desire to accomplish a task, its being used to mean the bringing about of an accomplishment of a task. 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.
... are/were not using the word "willing" to mean a desire to accomplish a task, its being used to mean the bringing about of an accomplishment of a task. 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: 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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
Here is my simplified graphic, let's see if this helps:
Notes:
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:
As we can easily see from this flow chart there are several other possibilities that were not considered. QED Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
This is where it gets amusing for me.
response is not the point, ... 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 shoesThe 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 ableYou 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 UNwilling So you can cherry pick which "somethings" you want to get whatever result you want. That's dishonest.
... it was unable or able, before or after, in either part of your scenario No, it was always able. It's really very very simple:
We have these results:
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: You agreed to those definitions for [able] in Message 30:
I am fine with these definitions, ... 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)?
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. Im sorry RAZD, I am still not seeing anything but able and unable. Take for granted the last part of your statement here. "We can be sure that it was ABLE to respond before and the LACK of stimulus (unable) is what prevented it from responding." 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.
Am I missing something.? 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. Enjoyby 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024