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

Yeah, I did get that.I think you could set it up either way, depending on how you want to use the words. And I think that makes it a less interesting debate than the one about what Spock said in Star Trek... but that's just me.Not that that's gonna stop me from participating

Hi Dawn Bertot, I don't need another word, Dawn, I just need to show that [able]ness and [willing]ness are not sufficient to categorize all the possibilities to falsify your claim that they are.In this specific case we have eliminated [willing]ness because there is no mechanism within the sunflower to be [willing] or un[willing].That leaves [able]ness as the only remaining control if you are correct.However we have one (1) situation where the sunflower responds to the movement of the sunlamp and we have one (1) situation where the sunflower does not respond to the movement of the sunlamp.The [able]ness of the sunflower to turn with the sunlamp is demonstrated everytime it is tested with the sunlamp on, so it does not lose this [able]ness in between tests.Obviously, the sunflower is not [able] to turn the sunlamp on, so that is not a requirement for the sunflower to be [able] to respond.We also find through this testing that if the sunflower is [able] to respond to the sunlamp when it is on, that it is not un[able] to respond -- it responds every time.The sunflower is not in control over whether it turns to face the sunlamp or not, and the [able]ness of the sunflower does not determine whether it turns to face the sunlamp or not. Correct it is [able] to function, agreed.However it does not turn to face the sunlamp when the lamp is off and moved. The [able]ness of the sunflower to function is not sufficient to explain the behavior.The behavior of the sunflower is programed\compulsive, with an internal programed\compulsive switch: if the switch is on the sunflower turns, if the switch is off the sunflower does not turn.The switch is turned [on] if there is an external stimulus (sunlight, sunlamp on) and the switch is turned [off] if the external stimulus is absent. The sunflower does not control the switch.The behavior of the sunflower is controlled by the presence or absence of an external stimulii not under it's control.It's behavior is compulsive\programed to act according to the switch.Enjoy.

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.

Hi again Dawn Bertot, Are you sure that you haven't used some aspect external to the [crew] (or other subject of the issue) in order to say that it still comes down to [able]ness or [willing]ness?When we talk about the crew, it is their [able]ness or [willing]ness that applies, not anyone else, as that is who we evaluate for [able]ness or [willing]ness. No, Bertot, he is [able] according to the definitions provided, and he is [willing] according to the definitions provided, but he is over-ruled - there are rules that prevent the action from being complete.The task is not complete due to reasons beyond his control and beyond the scope of whether HE is [able] and [willing] to do the task.The task could be

• vetoed by his commanding officer,
• assigned to someone else (so the task is completed by someone else)
• it may be delayed,
• it may be ignored (ambivalent\apathy again) OR
• the commanding officer could be waiting for further information before making a decision (undecisive).

In addition, the soldier could NEVER be [able] to control the officer -- this would be like the sunflower being able to control the switch on the sunlamp, or able to cause the sun to rise.All he can do is present his case and be [able] and [willing] to undertake the task, and then see if he is allowed to undertake the task according to the rules. So you admit that there ARE other factors that control whether a task is undertaken or completed. Curiously, I have provided several terms and conditions:

• Ambivalence (conflicted)
• Apathy (don't care)
• Insufficient time (being done, not done yet)
• Programs (such as security programs)
• Compulsions (compulsive action \ compulsive inaction)
• Rules
• Choice by chance (flipping a coin)

Now, I predict/expect you will attempt to show that these alternate conditions make the [doer] of the task un[able] by applying equivocation on the definitions that apply to the [doer] in relation to the [task] ... in spite of claiming that you don't do this.The problem you have is that they don't always result in no [response] [task] completion, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, and the difference is not something the [doer] can cause to occur one way or the other.You cannot control the flip of a coin. There is no aspect of [able]ness or [willing]ness that can control these external conditions.Another word I give you is chaotic -- the general unpredictability of things that cannot be controlled. Or when the chaotic winds of nature (hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, windstorms) blow the tree over . . . that may blow over this tree or that tree, so the [able]ness of the tree to stand is not the only thing that controls whether it stands through a storm, it depends on the chaotic nature of the storm being "kind" to the tree.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Here's another possibility:Maybe you have yet to perceive a response because I FORGOT to make one. Look at this forum. There is a button up there called "Messaging". I haven't looked up there in months. For some reason today I saw it blinking with nice cordial post from my friend Straggler and discovered that there was a whole book of unanswered messages. I was capable, I was willing. But I forgot to look.

Hi Dawn Bertot, As I pointed out earlier, these are more like zero positions than being [willing] or un[willing], where:

quote:

---

Message 52:

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.

​

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

​

You can't be both [willing] AND [apathetic]
You can't be both not[willing] AND [apathetic]
You can, however, be not[apathetic] and be EITHER [willing] OR not[willing]

​

In other words, to be either [willing] OR not[willing] you cannot be apathetic.

​

Ambivalent and apathetic are like the zero point in math between positive numbers and negative numbers -- it is neither positive nor negative.

---

Consider these words in conjunction with this decision process: In Case (B) you could be ambivalent, conflicted, over which course to take, yet feel compelled to reach a decision on inadequate information: you toss a coin and leave your choice to fate (or use some other method to guess which course to take).In Case (D) you could be apathetic, not caring, about which course to take, but decide to toss a coin and leave your choice to fate (or use some other method to randomly select which course to take).You are [able], you are neither [willing] nor un[willing] to do the task, you use a random selection process to decide instead, exemplified here by the toss of a coin.btw, in going back over the thread to find these previous posts I also ran into these tidbits: Oh. My. What do we have here? If he is [able] and [willing] to tie his shoes then apathy towards answering the phone does not apply? And what do we have here? If he is [able] and [willing] to tie his shoes then apathy towards answering the phone cannot apply? Really? It looks to me like you have done this.So how do you explain your comment in Message 47 that they are willing to toss the coin, and your comment in Message 101 that apathy only applies if one has no will at all?Why can't I be willing to tie my shoes and apathetic about answering the phone? Or are you actually caught being dishonest in the application of apathy, by saying that [willing]ness can apply to things other than the task? Except that they do not explain the sunflower and they do not explain apathy and ambivalence and the reliance on chance rather than will, just to name a few conditions where they are not adequate to cover all the contingencies that may be encountered.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : subT

Hi xongsmith, and welcome to the thread. Indeed, something else came up of higher priority and then one forgot to go back to the response.As in I am [able] and [willing] to pay my bills, so I put them on the counter until bill day, but sometimes I forget to pay the bills.Enjoy.

Hi again Dawn Bertot, Amusingly, several have been supplied. See Message 169 for a recap of those words. To which is added [chaotic] conditions and [forgetful]ness. Curiously, I must have missed those posts of yours when replying to all your posts - so far all I see is you equivocating on the application of the definitions, being dishonest in the application of the terms in order to force your conclusion to match your preconception. See Message 171 for examples of this behavior. Unfortunately opinion, including yours, has no effect on reality.You have an idee fixe, a preconception that these two terms apply to all situations, and yet we see several instances when they do not provide sufficient answers. You have been caught trying to change the situations so that you can claim [able] or [willing], but that doesn't make your position viable.Enjoy.

But you "could" have those fall under willing and/or able if you use the words in that way. Like how Spock was using the term willing to mean/imply accomplishing the task, so, say, ambivalence could be consider as acting on your will to do it, thereby making you "unwilling", or you could consider it a problem that prevents your ability to do it, as in you can't do it because you're so ambivalent.

Whoa, slow down there homie, I ve now got 4 of your new posts to respond to, let me get to these before you give anymore to meThanks Dawn Bertot

You have only eliminated it if you are not talking about human behavior. otherwise it still applies and no behavior will be described except by willing and unwilling This is alot of rehetoric and only the last sentence has any validity.Control is not the issues. if the sunflower can perform its internal functions, however, whenever, wherever it is ABLE to complete its functionthe sunflower illustration in no way removes the only two categories unless you are speaking about unwilling, simply because it does not apply true because ableness is decided not by an organism but by laws already in place that act upon that organism. Again ABLENESS of the sunflower is not what decides ableness and willingness. This is decided by reality and laws already in place before the sunflower functionsBy using the example of the sunflower you must believe the flower has certain existing programmed functions. If the purpose of the sunflower is to blossom and this brings it to fruiton, then it does not matter how this happens. it will only be able or unable to do this, depnding upon the already existing laws that surround it, oe whether it has a defectWhat is the purpose of the sunflower to begin with exacally, this is why ableness and unableness exist before the sunflower fuctions, or whether it does or not. No action in the mind or the physical world will fall outside able or unable, because the person or the funtion of any property is not what decides ableness or unablenessExisting laws already in place will determine whether a thing can funtion or notDawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Even the second ships crews ableness and willing ness is irrelivant.. the condition that is preventing them is outside themselves. Some law of a physical nature was interrupted, broke or ignoredSo even when they were willing and able, the source from which able and unable orginates acts to prevent or make them unable to contact the other ship again Zen deist, you are letting a book decide the strict definiton of reality, instead of reality defining reality."Reason beyond his control" are called laws of reality that make him unable to complete that task. Unableness does not originate in a person or organism, it is decided by laws that superceed those properties, its called reality wrong these are responses, or we could call them responses to reality and I could add 10000 more to the list. But as I have demonstrated they do not describe anything different besides willing or able, because they dont decide what able and willing is or is not. Reality does this for usI have shown that no matter your example that reality and its laws only makes able or unable possible, depending on the task, you bellieve the property should accomplishDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

There is no such thing as chaos. everything has a logical explanation for its actions, IOWs one thing flows from another reason, they are called laws of nature and reasonWhen the law prevents me I am unable, no matter the circumstance and no other word can be found to descibe unableChaos is a human expression with no basis in realitySurely you cant be serious about me not controlling the flip of a coinThe result of the coins flip is determined by strength, pressure, wieight of the coin and anyother law already in place, acted upon the coinit is not chaotic or random, because those do not actually exist, its only the laws of nature or reality, going through thier motionsThe result of the coins flip is only unknown (not random or chotic)to me because I have not at that moment figured out the laws that made its result, what it was. but those laws still exist even in that moment, even if I dont know what they wereThere is no such thing as randomness or chaoshere is an example. If God exists and he is all knowing, would it be any trouble for him to make the coin come up heads 1000 times out of 1000, without any majic involved? Not at all, because he knows all the laws that would be required in that moment, to make that happenSo what you are desribing as chaotic is nothing of the sort. If I understood those laws required in that moment or in those consecutive tries, I could make the coin come up heads everytimeTherefore I am unable, not because I dont have the ABILITY to possibly know those laws, but because I dont at that moment know all the laws required to accomplish that featSo while I have the ability from a logical standpoint, Im unable due to an outside inabilityNow pay close attention. That which you describe as randomness, the coin coming up tales instead of heads, is not actually randomness, its simply existing laws being acted upon given the physics of any toss. No randomness in reality, just inaccuracy on my part by not abiding by the laws of nature,, correct?Dawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Sure there is. If I am able to know and employ the necessary laws already in place Those external conditions will make me able, correct?

Hi Dawn Bertot, Obsessive Compulsive behavior is similar. A person with OCD is forced to behave in certain ways, whether they are willing to behave in that manner or not (and it frequently is in spite of being unwilling to behave that way because of embarrassment). It over-rides [willing]ness. Correct, but when the external stimulus\signal is blocked or not sent it does not perform its internal functions to turn with the sun\sunlamp, even though it is able to do so. But I'm not removing both. You have agreed that [willing]ness does not apply to the sunflower: there is, of course, no brain to be willing, but how do you explain the difference in behavior of the sunflower when you admit that it is [able] to function:• Why does the sunflower not turn to match the location of the sun on a cloudy day? -- it is "ABLE to complete its function" so what prevents it?
• Why does the sunflower not turn to match the location of the sunlamp when it is off? -- it is" ABLE to complete its function" so what prevents it?What we have instead of a subjective [willing]ness decision making process, is an objective programmed response that reacts according to the program and the input to the program. 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. Oh dear, what's going on here? Invention of an external [able]ness to prop up your claim? You are just sticking the word out there to attempt to claim that it now is a matter of [able]ness what decision is made by the program. That is not part of the definitions of the term [able] agreed to in Message 26: "having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications; qualified; having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity; possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective."Laws\rules and programs do not have [able]ness, they either work or they don't.The [able]ness is or isn't exhibited, it isn't 'decided' to be [able] or un[able] by some external source, but is a characteristic of the acting object - in this case the sunflower, where you have admitted that it is "ABLE to complete its function" -- and this is the only [able]ness that applies. You might as well say "god/s-did-it" then and because god/s is [able] and [willing] then everything is due to the [able]ness and [willing]ness of god/s. This is called moving the goal posts, which is dishonest. You agreed to the definition of what determines ableness in Message 30: And the additional word we are talking about here is [programmed].Do you rescind that agreement? or are you again being dishonest in the application of those definitions to something outside the object that performs the action?What you have is a programmed decision run by rules of behavior, and we know that the sunflower is [able] to run the program because we have tested it. The response of the sunflower can vary from minute to minute as conditions change the input stimulus. The "Existing laws already in place" is the program, the program is able to function: if there is stimulus there is response; if there is no stimulus there is no response.The [able]ness of the sunflower to turn is demonstrated in the testing: it is [able] to turn.The [able]ness of the sunflower to run the program is demonstrated in the testing: it is [able] to react positively when the sunlight is on and it is [able] to react negatively when the sunlamp is off. When the sunflower is [able], the program determines the result. One result is positive and one result is negative, and the result depends on variable input from external conditions.The ability of the earth to spin on its axis and orbit the sun is not the issue, it is the ability of the sunflower AND the result of the programming that is the issue.Enjoy.