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

Hello Butterflytyrant, I believe that in your example the term unable still applies. Especially if we use the definitions that RAZD provides in message 26. In each of the definitions it includes the adjective of necessary or needed. In your example where a reply is made by the other ship but undetected by the Enterprise, it is not of a form or medium that is necessitated by the Enterprise. So the classification of unable would still apply. They are able to make a reply, but unable to make it in the necessary form that the Enterprise can recognize. So they are still either unwilling or unable. Your thoughts?Edited by rueh, : Add emphasis

When I first thought about this I believed that the second ships responses would only fall under two catergories (unable, unwilling). After reviewing your posts and further thought, I see how the mistake in Spocks logic is the use of the verb respond. 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.

Well it could be a bit complicated. Seeing as how a point could be made that a line of communication is what is implied in Spock's usage of response. In which case if it is communication that is being implied, then being unable to respond is correct from Spock's perspective. Regardless of the reasons why that response was not received. Though he was technically incorrect in the choice of verbiage. Truthfully though, I hate discussions about semantics and 'am going to go back to lurker mode so that I can read through RAZD's charts that he loves so much

Hello RAZD, 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?

Ok it is a zero position. I think that only remains true if two things apply. One, that your ambivalence remains so pervasive as to never make a choice. If your decision is based on a coin toss than you are still making a choice based on those results. Either willing or not willing. Two, that the result of no action does not have the same consequences or appearance as not willing to act. If you are so conflicted as to not respond (since a conflict between willing and unwilling leads to a non response) than in my book that is the same as not willing to respond. I don't see this as being the same state of being as either willing or able. These are reasons why you are either willing or not willing.Edited by rueh, : spell checkEdited by rueh, : clarify a point

Good morning RAZD, No I don't believe I am confusing the two. What I am saying is that you are still making a choice to either be willing or unwilling regardless of how that choice is determined. It could be by weighing the information and determining the consequences of your action or by diving tea leaves. Ultimately you are still making a choice of willing or unwilling. I believe it does make you unwilling, at least temporarily. You are weighing the information and determining that a response is not needed as this point so you are unwilling to respond, at this point in time. Or the situation could need your immediate attention in which case you are unable to respond at this point. In the future your unwillingness or inability to respond could turn to willingness or ability, at which time you then respond. I don't think that just because you are delaying the choice, negates your willingness or ability it just delays it. You could say that I meant to respond but I didn't because of whatever factors but when it comes down to it you are still more willing to accomplish the other tasks before you are willing to respond.If we consider your diagram than I believe that the outcomes can be summed up as follows.A= Willing to decide based on empirical evidence
B= Willing to decide based on inadequate evidence
C= Unwilling to decide at this point
D= Willing to make a decision based on opinion anyway.Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

Hello Panda, Ah mindless compulsions, I get those all the time . Well that would eliminate willingness but not ability. So the logic that a given action comes down to either ability or willingness is still sound.Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

Well if we take compulsion to mean an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act, then willingness is a non factor. However the antonym of compulsion is free-will. So you can’t have a non compulsion with out being free to choose between willing and unwilling. So if Spock were to say that "there is only three reasons why they did not respond. They are either unable, unwilling or do not suffer from a compulsion" doesn't make any sense. They may have a compulsion to not respond but that makes them unable. Since it would be an inability to perform an act.

Hello RAZD It depends on what the required action is. If I am required to respond and my ambivalence prevents that from occurring than I am unable to respond. ( I realize that I was using unwilling before and I may have needed to use unable). Ambivalence is a reason why there is no response but the ultimate outcome is that it makes me unable to respond. The same is true with the deer he is able to run until he is compelled to not run. At which time he is unable to run. When the compulsion is alleviated than he is able to run again. I am not sure if that is affirming the consequence or not. Maybe you could help me see the error. If affirming the consequent is-
1.If P, then Q.
2.Q.
3.Therefore, P.
P=compulsion, ambivalence, etc.
Q=unableI don't think that my argument is-
1. If Compelled then Unable
2. Unable
3. Therefore compelledThe way I am trying to express my argument is
1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q.Or1. If compelled, ambivalent, etc. then unable
2. compelled, ambivalent, etc.
3. therefore unableAmbivalence, compulsion, what have you, could be the reason but the ultimate outcome is inability. Your ability to ride may be unaffected but your willingness is. If it is raining you are unwilling to ride your bike. You could ride, you enjoy riding except in the rain so you choose not to ride. Therefore you are unwilling to ride. There could be stipulations that effect your willingness such as priorities, at which time your unwillingness changes to willingness (but grumpy )1.If rain, then unwilling to ride
2. Rain
3. Therefore unwilling
or if we have other factors that affect your willingness then it would be1. If P, then Q, unless X
2. P and X
3. Therefore not Q1. If rain, then unwilling, unless late (for example)
2. Rain and late
3. Therefore not unwillingI agree that there can be reasons or possibilities for an action or inaction however I still think that all your examples can be expressed as either able, not able, willing, not willing.As a side note. Your table in the message I was responding to had an error. Message 136 You have unwilling to decide in both a row and a column.Edited by rueh, : No reason given.Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

Good morning RAZD, I knew the basic concept of the fallacy but not the mathematical expression of it. That is not the way I am presenting my argument. At least it is not the way I am trying to present it. [abe]I believe that you have my premise 1 reversed. I am saying that

• If there is no response made, then you are unable to respond
• no response made
• therefore you are unable to respond

I am not saying that something else couldn't have caused the none response, but that it can be expressed as unable or unwilling.[/abe]True I am using a very broad definition of the word able. I am saying that ambivalence, compulsion is the reason why a response is not made but it can be expressed as unable for all intensive purposes. If we narrowly define able to mean a skill, or a resource, then yes you can be able, willing and still not respond. However if we use the broader definition of able then it is correct. You yourself agreed to a broad definition when we were defining terms. In case you do not recall in Message 26 We agreed that able was defined as - Notice the bolded section of etcetera in the definition.
Meaning : a number of unspecified additional persons or things.
So by that definition anything that allows you to do something or accomplish a task would make you able, by definition. Or conversely anything that prevents you from doing the same would unable you. It may be begging the question but by the standards of our definition it is grammatically correct. Just so I am clear. I do agree that there are any numerous reasons that a task can be not accomplished. All of these could have been expressed by Spock in his explanation. However for the point of brevity he is correct as being able to express these reasons as either unable or unwilling. Funny how life works like that isn't it? My girlfriend has the habit of talking about something and then that situation occurring all the time. That's why I try and encourage her to always talk about positive things I believe that in your circumstance is where the additional X factors apply.

1. If P, then Q, unless X
2. P and X
3. Therefore not Q

• P= Rain
• Q= unwilling
• X= already riding

Here the X factor was that you were already riding your bike
and I agree that in these circumstances you were both willing and able. However my argument is not that you would be either unable or unwilling. It is that any given action can be expressed as either willing, able, unwilling, unable and your story highlights this. You were still able and still willing to ride the bike. If either of these conditions had changed. Either you were unable or unwilling to ride the bike, then you would not have done so.I thought about this last night before I went to bed and came up with what I believe is a true circumstance where unable or unwilling cannot express the incompletion of a given task, without relying on the definition of either able or willing. It has to do with how we define the purpose of the given task. If we broadly define it then you can be able and willing but the task can be unaccomplished. However, if we specify the definition of it, than you can not be able or willing and the task remain unaccomplished. I believe it relates to our Spock example that inspired this conversation and may allow for Spock to use the word respond instead of communicate and still be correct.

• Our given task is for me to talk to you.
• I speak English and not French.
• You speak French and do not understand English.

If we define talk as to have words come out of my mouth. A broad definition. Then I am able, willing and the task is accomplished. However if we define the task of talking to you as words come out of my mouth, are heard by you and are understood by you. A specified definition. Then I am now willing but unable to talk even though there are words coming out of my mouth. Since in this case the specified action is for my words to come out of my mouth, be heard by you and be understood by you. Given these circumstances I am unable to accomplish the latter part of the task.
So in our Spock example, if we define respond as, a transmission sent for the purpose of being received and understood by a second party, in this case the Enterprise. This gives us three things about a response that has to be fulfilled in order to be successful.

• Response sent
• Response received
• Response understood

Then the ship is unable to respond since they are unable to accomplish the purpose of the task. The may be able to send the response but since the second and third part of the task is unfulfilled then they are unable to complete the task in its entirety. Edited by rueh, : No reason given.Edited by rueh, : Clear up some formatingEdited by rueh, : No reason given.

I would like to retract my reasonings for being able to use unable in the circumstances I mentioned in message 150. After further thought I realize that it does not work for deductive reasoning purposes. If we use such a broad definition of able, or in this case unable there are some problems that occur. One it has the consequence of unwillingness being a cause for inability. Which means Spock could have said that there is only one reason for no response, they are unable to respond. which is just silly. Two if we use such a bland definition it makes unable, unable to explain anything. If any and everything can be explained by inability then it is really explaining nothing at all. It may be grammatically correct to phrase inability in this manner but for the purposes of deduction it fails to hold water.It reminds me of explanations I have read from other posters as to why god did it is not really an explanation at all. It may be the truth but if it is used to explain everything then it explains nothing at all. Lastly it assumes the premise without actually providing any proof as to why this is the case. I believe this is what RAZD was explaining to me about begging the question. I have yet to find any other reasons to prove that Spocks logic is sound but rest assured I will still gaze at my navel in search of an answer. Until then thank you for the discussion.Edited by rueh, : I don't believe I will ever be able to write a sentence and get then and than right the first time.

Hello Dawn Bertot, This is the same argument that I was making however it falls victim to the same pitfalls I described in Message 155 If all principles describe what reality is actualized, then willingness can describe if you are able or unable. In which case the possibilities do not fall into the two categories of either unwilling or unable. They fall solely under either able or unable. Maybe it's like Yoda said "there is no try, there is only do or do not" There is no willing to respond you are either able or unable to respond. Grammaticaly it may be correct but it explains no reason as to why you are unable.

Hello Dawn Bertot, I think that you missed my point. I am not saying that describing whether we are able or not able to accomplish a task is not true. Obviously I agree with the statement that in the general sense we are either able or unable (or any other synonym of able) to accomplish a task. What I am saying is that able or unable does not describe the reason why a task is not accomplished. It could be for any numerous reasons unwillingness, ambivalence, apathy, etc. These are the underlying causes of our inability. The reasons why a task remains unaccomplished.

Hello RAZD,Just a quick question I would like for to clear up if possible as I read through your discussion. In this case with the sunflower, wouldn't the needed resource be the external stimuli of the sun or lamp? If that is absent then the sunflower does not respond. So it should be correct to say that it is unable do to it lacking the necessary resource of the external stimuli?