|
Author
|
Topic: Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
|
rueh
Member (Idle past 3681 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: 03-03-2008
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 121 of 211 (633467)
09-14-2011 8:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
09-13-2011 3:21 PM
|
|
Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
RAZD writes: Think of it as the zero position between positive willing and negative willing -- it is neither positive nor negative. 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.
RAZD writes: 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?" 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 check Edited by rueh, : clarify a point
'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 3:21 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 127 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 10:41 PM | | rueh has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 122 of 211 (633483)
09-14-2011 11:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 112 by RAZD
09-13-2011 8:03 PM
|
|
Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
In other words you are not using the definitions agreed to by others, including Dawn Bertot, to apply lesser common usage The commom usage, and definitions that others have agreed upon, is irrelevant to the more appropirate definition that I am using.
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. Well I have been consistent, and I'm using the meaning that is most appropriate for the context of the situation.
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. No, its not. Especially if you consider the whole situation: The Enterprise had made contact with the space lab, who was saying that somebody was trying to take the Genesis, and then the signal got jammed. We already know that the space lab had the desire to communicate with the enterprise. Then we learn that their signal is no longer jammed, but that they still are not communicating. This is when Spock comes in and says they are unwilling or unable. It simply does not make sense for Spock to be talking about their desires, we already know they want help. The implication here is that the invaders of the lab either incapacitated the people so they are unable to respond or have threatened them out of their willingness to respond.
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. We're talking about Spock making a logically deduced claim... Its very fitting that his word use would constrain the possibilities into the two that he is claiming. If you use my definitions, then everything fits together nicely, makes sense, and is consistent with what we know about Spock. You definitions would be more appropriate if it was Homer Simpson who was making the claim. Instead, you've turned Spock into a blundering idiot and we all know that's just crazy.
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. No really, read the script. They had already been communicating with the space lab and then the signal got jammed. Then the signal is un-jammed and Uraha says that they are still not getting a response. There's no way she's making a claim that the people on the ship are not screaming for help, or something; she's saying that they're not communicating with them. And then Spock re-uses the words that she did.
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. You missed the point... arguing about whether the task is this or that is beside the point that willingness in this context is about the completion of the task rather than the desire to do so.
Sorry to break it to you, but Spock is a fictional character. That's totally irrelevant.
... 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. But they are in the definitions... in the dictionary that you linked to. And further, you ommitted that definition from your copy-n-paste.
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. Consenting and ready might fit here, but a simple inclination is ruled out by the context of the situation that shows that the responders already had the desire to communicate because their lab had been invaded and somebody was robbing them. It simply does not make sense for Spock to be talking about the desires of those people, plus it makes him a fool if he was (which he isn't).
You're confusing (imho) the part of the issue that belongs under [able]ity with those that belong under [willing]ness: Perhaps, but as I said earlier: there is some overlap.
But they still do not depend on actually getting the task done, they just mean you have the ability to get the task done. Here's what Uraha said:
quote:
... Again, this is Enterprise calling
Space Lab Regula I. Come in, please.
Dr. Marcus. Please respond, please
-- it's no use; no response from Regula I.
She cannot be making the claim that the people inside the lab are not screaming for help, she's making a claim about the fact that the Enterprise has not received a response. Too, the person on the lab had alread asked Captain Kirk to: "please send help". So we know they have the desire to comminicate. Your claims that they could be trying to repond but not getting it done, or that they could have the desire to comminicate even thought they haven't, simply do not fit within the context of the situation. They're just post hoc inventions from your attempt to prove the claim wrong. Without any context, or with the claim all by itself, I agree that they could work. But given the context of the situation, they just don't fit.
You're graphic from Message 118 shows that you don't know the specifics of the situation... The Enterprise had already been communicating with the Regula when the signal got jammed by some invaders trying to steal the Genesis. Then it gets un-jammed and the people are no longer communicating. What Spock is essentially saying is that they're either dead and unable respond, or they have a gun pointed to their head and are unwilling to respond. That's what he's talking about. He's not talking about security protocols, or if there was enough time, or if the hand of god reached out and intercepted the signal as it was on its way to the Enterprise. You're trying to shoe-horn possibilies into the situation that just don't fit.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 8:03 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 164 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 11:35 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Wasn't Spock right?
I would have caught the bus. I could have caught the bus. I did not catch the bus. But that does not mean I would not or could not at the time. We're using different definitions for the root "will". On one end its about accomplishing the task, and on the other its about the desire to do something. If you said that you will catch the bus, and then you don't, then no... you wouldn't do it. You still may have had the will to catch the bus, but for some reason you wouldn't actually do it.
The example first proposed by DB with the word respond changed to communicate is very specific and will illustrate your point. But you could still (wrongly) argue that they had the will to communicate even though they wouldn't actually do it.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 128 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 11:00 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 124 of 211 (633578)
09-14-2011 8:58 PM
|
|
|
Anyway I am not sure who is still playing but my original example and illustration was in conjunction with and to help demonstrate the only two logical possibilites for the existence of anything. It is interesting to consider how words (able and willing) can so accurately reflect reality. Perhaps some one could think of other words, that are so restricted by reality. My first guess would be possible and impossible, with probable as a combination or limited to either one of them if anyone can think of such examples please present them, even if this discussion continues or those offered never get discussed. As BT suggested in another thread, this might be a pointless discussion, but then there is no requirement to have all discussions that have earth shattering consequesnces. its a nice break from that and its kinda fun to see how people view reality Thanks for playing Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
The sunflower test
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 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 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:
- Take the sunflower inside, into a room with no windows and with diffuse ambient light similar to a blue sky
- Put it in a pot with automatic watering and nutrient provisions.
- Bring a sunlamp into the room.
- Turn the sunlamp on.
- The sunflower responds by turning towards the sunlamp.
- Move the sunlamp (at a speed to match the apparent speed of the sun in the sky).
- The sunflower responds by turning with the lamp.
- Turn the sunlamp off.
- The sunflower does nothing.
- Move the sunlamp back to it's original position at the same speed.
- The sunflower does nothing.
- Turn the lamp on.
- The sunflower responds by turning towards the sunlamp.
- Move the sunlamp at the same speed as before.
- The sunflower responds by turning with the lamp.
- Turn the sunlamp off.
- The sunflower does nothing.
- Move the sunlamp back to it's original position at the same speed.
- The sunflower does nothing.
- Turn the lamp on etc etc etc
We have these results:
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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:
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. Enjoy
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
The flow chart
Hi again Dawn Bertot,
Please tell me if I am missing something and I thought you were the only one that understood from the opposition, but it appears you have missed the point as well Im not loojing for options for response, but would any actions by either side be characterized by something different than Willing or Able Where or what on your chart am I missing something Again, as I said in Message 125 you cannot unlink the adjectives from the verbs:
quote:
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 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 UNwilling So you can cherry pick which "somethings" you want to get whatever result you want. That's dishonest.
Thus the [able]ness, [willing]ness and any other modifier used MUST relate to and be measured against an action if they determine whether or not that action takes place. Now look at the flow chart again. You have an opening initial condition at the top, and an expected action at the bottom. The flow chart takes you down through a number of tests to see if the action will be completed, and the conditions that apply if the action is not completed (from Message 118):
quote:
Here is my simplified graphic, let's see if this helps:
Notes:
- 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.
- This is the original "unable to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unable, this is where it shows up.
- This is the original "unwilling to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unwilling, this is where it shows up.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- the CREW was unable to respond
OR
- the Crew was unwilling to respond.]
As we can easily see from this flow chart there are several other possibilities that were not considered. QED
In this instance the action is [response] and the various test boxes determine whether or not the action is completed. One of these test boxes involves [able]ness. One of these boxes involves [willing]ness. The other 5 do not. The first 6 test boxes determine whether the action is completed or not, while the last one determines whether or not it is known that the action was completed or not in the time alloted.
Where or what on your chart am I missing something That there are other factors that can affect whether or not the action is completed, not just [able]ness and [willing]ness. Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : correct link to flow chart
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 127 of 211 (633591)
09-14-2011 10:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by rueh
09-14-2011 8:31 AM
|
|
chance and necessity
Hi again rueh,
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. You make a choice but the choice is randomly selected -- you have no control over which side the coin lands on. You are confusing willing to follow the coin toss with willing to respond: willing to follow the coin toss does not mean that you respond. If you flip tails and don't respond you are willing to follow the coin toss but not willing to respond. If you flip heads and respond you are willing to follow the coin toss and willing to respond. Because you can end up either responding or not responding you can't say it is because you are willing to respond or unwilling 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. Yes, they involve the necessities of the situation. If the result is essentially the same whether a response is made or not, then a response is unnecessary. If the crew of the second ship can't survive until the Enterprise beams over to the ship, then making a response is irrelevant to the crew, and therefore unnecessary. Thus immediate survival is more necessary than response, so until immediate survival is achieved it is counterproductive to respond, once survival is achieved it is productive to respond -- therefore it is necessary to delay the response until survival is (and other necessary higher priority tasks are) completed.
| Necessary
| Willing
| Unwilling
| | Able
| Necessary, Able and Willing
| Necessary, Able and Unwilling
| | Unable
| Necessary, Unable and Willing
| Necessary, Unable and Unwilling |
AND
| Unnecessary
| Willing
| Unwilling
| | Able
| Unnecessary, Able and Willing
| Unnecessary, Able and Unwilling
| | Unable
| Unnecessary, Unable and Willing
| Unnecessary, Unable and Unwilling |
Now if it is necessary, and you are willing and able, then the action will be undertaken (ie response). If it is unnecessary, but you are willing and able, then the action may be taken if there are no necessary actions that need to be taken first, or it may be delayed until after more necessary actions are taken. If I am willing to respond to your post, and able to respond to your post, but don't perceive it as necessary, then I may delay that response for a day while I complete some other tasks that I view as more important (necessary) to my long term survival, ... however that delay does not mean that I am either UNable or UNwilling to reply. Consider this diagram that I developed for a different thread:
question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
| |
yes no
| |
decide based is a
on empirical decision
valid evidence necessary?
(A) / \
yes no ... but ...
/ | |
decide why make a
based on decide decision
inadequate at this anyway
evidence time? based on
=guess =wait =opinion
(B) (C) (D) |
- You may have sufficient information to decide to take action (A).
- You may have insufficient information to decide to take action, but it may be necessary to take action (B).
- You may have insufficient information to decide to take action, and it may be unnecessary to take action (C). If you are [able] and [willing] to take action (D), you may chose to take action, but the action may or may not be taken delayed due to various other necessities.
Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by rueh, posted 09-14-2011 8:31 AM | | rueh has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 130 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 8:18 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
different definitions = different arguments rather than agreement
Hi Catholic Scientist Just to be clear:
We're using different definitions for the root "will". On one end its about accomplishing the task, and on the other its about the desire to do something. This means you are not talking about the same thing. Enjoy.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 129 of 211 (633604)
09-15-2011 12:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by RAZD
09-14-2011 11:00 PM
|
|
Re: different definitions = different arguments rather than agreement
Just to be clear:
We're using different definitions for the root "will". On one end its about accomplishing the task, and on the other its about the desire to do something. This means you are not talking about the same thing.
Yes, I'm pretty sure... I made it clear in my first post in this thread that I was typing about what Spock said... whatever misconstructions you have with DB don't matter to me... but I do believe I'm on topic. ABE: If you use the root "will" as in 'desire', then that opens up more possibilities, but if you use it like Spock did, then he is correct that those are the only two possibilities. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 11:00 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 134 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 10:58 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
rueh
Member (Idle past 3681 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: 03-03-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 130 of 211 (633633)
09-15-2011 8:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 127 by RAZD
09-14-2011 10:41 PM
|
|
Re: chance and necessity
Good morning RAZD,
RAZD writes: You are confusing willing to follow the coin toss with willing to respond: willing to follow the coin toss does not mean that you respond. If you flip tails and don't respond you are willing to follow the coin toss but not willing to respond. If you flip heads and respond you are willing to follow the coin toss and willing to respond. 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.
RAZD writes: If I am willing to respond to your post, and able to respond to your post, but don't perceive it as necessary, then I may delay that response for a day while I complete some other tasks that I view as more important (necessary) to my long term survival, ... however that delay does not mean that I am either UNable or UNwilling to reply. 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.
'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 127 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 10:41 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 131 of 211 (633635)
09-15-2011 8:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by rueh
09-15-2011 8:18 AM
|
|
Re: chance and necessity
rueh writes: 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 think I see what you mean and I agree. I think that RAZD's example involving the flower was better, because there you have a response which is without a choice. Maybe the 3rd option from 'Willing' and 'Unwilling' is 'Mindless Compulsion'?
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 8:18 AM | | rueh has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 132 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 8:32 AM | | Panda has replied | | | Message 138 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 12:13 PM | | Panda has seen this message but not replied |
|
rueh
Member (Idle past 3681 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: 03-03-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 132 of 211 (633636)
09-15-2011 8:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 131 by Panda
09-15-2011 8:27 AM
|
|
Re: chance and necessity
Hello Panda,
Panda writes: Maybe the 3rd option from 'Willing' and 'Unwilling' is 'Mindless Compulsion'? 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.
'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 8:27 AM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 133 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 8:54 AM | | rueh has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 133 of 211 (633640)
09-15-2011 8:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 132 by rueh
09-15-2011 8:32 AM
|
|
Re: chance and necessity
rueh writes: 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.
I didn't think we were necessarily looking to 'eliminate' aspects of this situation. If you add mindlessly compulsed * you get: able + willing able + unwilling able + compulsed able + un-compulsed unable + willing unable + unwilling unable + compulsed unable + un-compulsed
*Yeah, yeah. It's not a 'real' word.......yet. {abe}I think my list needs some more thought... Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : Missed some bits...
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 132 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 8:32 AM | | rueh has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 137 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 12:03 PM | | Panda has not replied | | | Message 141 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 1:21 PM | | Panda has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
specific case or general case - that is the question
Hi Catholic Scientist, thanks
Yes, I'm pretty sure... I made it clear in my first post in this thread that I was typing about what Spock said... whatever misconstructions you have with DB don't matter to me... but I do believe I'm on topic. I haven't said you are off topic, I've said that your definition begs the question and creates a tautology.
If you use the root "will" as in 'desire', then that opens up more possibilities, but if you use it like Spock did, then he is correct that those are the only two possibilities. I don't agree with your interpretation of what Spock's usage was, but that is not the issue. In addition to using a different definition, you are also arguing from a specific case with preceding conditions that affect the issue - however the case Dawn Bertot is making is that the "Spock dilemma" is a general case, independent of the Star Trek episode, and where Dawn Bertot accepts the definitions I am using. It is possible to have specific cases where the two options, that does not show that it applies in a general case As a general case it needs to be claimed to apply to all other scenarios as the only options, with my posted definitions, and is falsified by have any specific case where additional issues impact the results. My argument shows that it does not meet this standard for a general case with my posted definitions. Enjoy.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-15-2011 11:47 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 135 of 211 (633660)
09-15-2011 11:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 134 by RAZD
09-15-2011 10:58 AM
|
|
Re: specific case or general case - that is the question
Hi Catholic Scientist, thanks Sure, thanks for the discussion.
I haven't said you are off topic, I haven't said that you said that I was off topic 
I've said that your definition begs the question and creates a tautology. Is it possible to create a sound logical deduction like this one that isn't tautologous? Isn't that kinda the point of a claim about the only possibilities? If you want to reduce the options down to some number of them, then you're going to have to use words and phrases that do just that.
I don't agree with your interpretation of what Spock's usage was, but that is not the issue. In addition to using a different definition, you are also arguing from a specific case with preceding conditions that affect the issue... This case is the origination of the argument. Other cases that stem from it into incorrect claims are an aside.
however the case Dawn Bertot is making is that the "Spock dilemma" is a general case, independent of the Star Trek episode, It can be, as I've said... but its still gonna be tautologous
My argument shows that it does not meet this standard for a general case with my posted definitions Sure, but you're begging your question too with your definitions 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 10:58 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2