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

this is absolutely true as well. Limiting it however does not change that willingness still applies. Nor does it change the fact that there is no other word, concept or idea different than Able or unable Sure it does. relity or physical properties have limitation itself, that is why things are the way they ar and why we can desribe them as Able and unableDawn Bertot

fortunately reality is not a perconception, it defines Able and willing,not the other way around and that is the problem you are havingReuh writes:Until RAZD can provide another term that does not fall under willing and able he has failed. He would have presented that word a long time ago, had he been able. i have shown that none of his attempts at terms thus far will workNotice how he made no attempt to respond to my argument that he needs to demonstrate how apathy doesnt involve will. he wont do this because he knows there is no way to seperate the twoHence any terms thus presented by him have failedDo you notice that he wont just say, "This is the term that is different than willing or able, ______"RAZD, simply provide a term that I have not already demonstrated that will not work. Or present the term again you have already presented and the reasons it is different in simple english and one liners, without disortations and lectures. Then perhaps we can discuss it open and honestlyhere it is again. The alternate or different word to describe any action in the physical world besides willining and able, unwilling and unable is______________. Fill in the blankDawn BertotThank youEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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?

So you are saying that an inability or unableness overrides willingness, correct? Would you say that its internal functions ARE the function of the sunflower and they are its purpose as an organism? Because you havent told me what the function and purpose of the sunflower is, so as to determine if itis able to complete its function Forgive me RAZD these are really stupid questionsit does not turn to the sun, because it is programmed to react by the sun. Hence even in this instance it is ABLE to complete its program of not responding Not quit as verbose but Yeah, thats what I just said, "its able" Again, response is not the issue. is it ABLE to NOT react, at times, according to its programming, Yes. Is it ABLE to react at times according to its programming, YesHence able You sound desperate. My claim as has always been, "that it is now a matter of ableness"have you been here the past few weeks?I agreed to those definitions because they describe reality, not single organisms or personal decisionsEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Im not even going to touch that one, do you see what you just did, you affirmed my position Wrong. Even in the case of the 2nd ship, while they were able in theory to make a response, were impeded by an outside external source. Namely that sorry son of a buck named Ricrdo Montbon. "with my last breath I spit at thee, from hells heart i stab at theewrong, even if the sunflower is able to NOT turn to the sun by its programming, it is Unable to complete its ultimate mission of polination, blossoming, so RAZD can admire its beauty,Flower Boy this statement has always amuzed me. why do you assume the goals posts were in the right position to begin with, because you liked where they were at?except for one illustration, I havent even mentioned GodNo everything is able and willing because of realityBut now pay close attention!!!!!!!!!!!In truth there is no such thing as able or unable, there is only realityhowever, when willingness by man or animal is figured in, then able and unable become a realitydecision making or the thought process is independant of reality, because thoughts have no reality. but they do make Able and Willing a reality. Otherwise there is just realityNow do you see what I am sayingDawn 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.

of course it applies to the scenario in the movie, but My original implication was that it applies to reality. Remember me saying at one point forget about the scenarioOf course they didnt send a response, most were tied up or dead another was screaming like a girl, whilst getting a thorny, horny worm stuck in his ear. crybabyhence Spocks statement applies to this disruption of laws that would otherwise allow them, therefore inability, because they were unable to respond, because of an outside influence, Kahn. IOWs something other than thier inability I just did First tell me what is the goal or function of the sunflower Did you fall and hit your head whilst riding your bike?wrong. like the function and purpose of the sunflower, in the scenario, you shift back and forth on what impeded thier success in completing the responseyou mix up responses with success or ultimate goals. The goal of the second ship was not to simply respond and therefore claim they were able and therefore sucessfulSomething outside themselves impeded thier goal of getting a message thru. thier willingness is not simply to respond,but get the message thruSo while they were willing from every aspect they were unable to accomplish thier task, Correct?Where would you get the nusty idea that unable only refers to the actor and the things at his disposal. even so, wouldnt the things at his disposal include someone shoving a bug in your ear I think the people that gave these definitions, did not feel it necessary to explain that someones inability, whilst having all of the above, could be interuppted by an outside source. and therefore make it unable, even possesing the above in theory.I bet they thought most people would be able to figure that out. Yes ,it is reality if it happened and therefore a law Can you provide another word besides able or willing to explain your actions Was he able or unable to have the ability?Was he able or unable to complete the task?Was the task able or unable to be completed? So ableness in your view is whether the sunflower only has the capacity, but not whether it completes its function, correctWouldnt the purpose or function, define the task and hence make it able or unable to complete its intended purposeSo, if , "This behavior that DOES affect whether the sunflower does turn to face the sun", wouldnt this behavior by the sun affect whether it is able or unable to complete its ultimate goal? IOWs an outside influenceLets say someone walks by and steps on the sunflower, so while the flower from a genetic standpoint still has the microscopic ABILITY to turn to the sun, will someone stepping on it prevent it from completing its goal or purpose, therefore make it unableSo do you still want to argue that ableness and unableness is limited to the flower and not another outside influenceHowever:Even if I go with your interpretation of the source of ableness or unableness, it still only comes up Able or unable, 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.

Simply give me an example in the real world, that is not one thing happenings as a result of another. A logical sequence of events. there is no such thing as chaos If I understood all the physical laws each time I tossed the coin, I could control what I wanted it to be. Because those laws exist in reality and they are not random, because there is no such thing as random, its a made up word that does not reflect reality, that is only laws and events flowing one from another. No chaos, no randomnessWithout a lot of verbage and complicated examples, give me an example of chaos or randomness in the real world, not with numbers or symbols To see ones self doing something is not the same as knowing that if I understood all the facts which actually do exist, that I could control the resultsGod is all knowing, which means he knows even the most minute details. It means he could throw the coin to the desired result an unlimited amount of timeshe would not need to work out any details, as the so-called details are already a part of his enternal existence This is like asking if god can make a rock bigger than he can lift, its nonsensicalGod cannot NOT know something or choose to not know something, thats idiocy.He is law and all knowledge at the sametime, there is no sepration or suppressing it by himselfThe moment he chose (in theory0 to forget something, which he could not do anyway, he would cease to be GodHow do you seperate infinity from infinity. Heres a hint, you cant, its a logical impossibilityEven God cannot do that which is logically impossible, because 'logical impossibility' is a concept, it does not exist in realityDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This is silly. Able in theory is not able in actuality. I may have the ability to fall off a building, but until it happens, its not actually a real thing.Therefrore your imagining that ability is actual, even when it did not happpen does not constitute Able. Your just muzing or waxing philosophicaldemonstrate how an imagined ability is actually real. One can only theorize of its actuality, because it was not carried outDawn Bertot

Whew, I thought you had given up, glad to see you hadnt.Have fun riding your bkie Zen Deist, Ill get to the task of destroying both your latest arguments and ego a bit later. Ha HaDawn BertotDo you know what the Zen Deist said to the hot dog vender, "Make me one with everything"Sorry I had to

Unfortunately this is double talk. By discribing OCB you have contrasted it with what is considered normal behavior. Why you would conclude that this is something different than ability, is beyond me.You have simply stated they are unable to act in a normal fashion, or what you consider normalI find it interesting that you keep saying that this or that is independant from able or willinng, or you say able or willing does not cover this or that area, but then wont provide a word that is different than those two or is not covered by those twoYouve amazingly stated that you dont need another word, but with more double talk assure us that it is different than able or willing Ofcourse they do. Sunflowers exist in real time, they function, they live and die, they all do the samething
You are the one that is using them as an example. You therefore believe they have function and purpose. What is it? Ok, so provide me another word in either of these instances, that is different than and means something other than able or unable It does not matter if programming answers the issue of different behaviors. Hyothetically, If there never was any sunlight, after say, the plant was only half developed it would be unable to complete its ultimate funtion of blooming or polination or whatever its ultimate purpose isYour huge mistake is assuming that ability has only to do with the flower itself. it does not matter whether these (Laws) are only laws functioning or not, they affect the flowers ablilty. One could theorize a nuclear holocost or meteroite hit that would block the sun for huge amounts of time, at which case it would render the flower unable to complete its functionErronesously you assume that able and unable are obligated to describe the flowers programming. they have nothing to do with that directly, as a part of the flowers makeup. they only decide if the flower will or will not complete its intended design and functionThe sunflower may have many programmed functions, but only one one real purpose. Again with respect, this is nonsense, (yours not mine)Heres why. Imagined ability and inablity is not real. Something has to actually happen in reality for ability and inability to be real themselves.When the sunflower is hit by the sun it turns. When there are clouds or night blocking the sun, this is a real action taking place that makes the flower unable to complete its function or programming.Your huge mistake is assuming that ability and inability only take place in the organism itself. All of reality make things able or unable, not just the organism, or imagined ability or inabilityAre you starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, or are the rocks blocking the sun?There is no such thing as ableness and unableness existing at the sametime, when refering to the same specific function, of the same specific organismthe ability to turn or not turn are not ableness at the sametime, that is an imagined property not a real one. it is only able or unable at any given time in reality. You cant just make stuff up and hope it is real, it has to be real Zen Deist, all of reality and its functioning laws make able and unable a reality and all affect those real causes. Imagined abilites dont really exits, that is why your argument seems to work in theory, but doesnt work upon closer examination, or in realityIt also demonstrates that all of the laws in reality determine what able and unableness are or are not. It also clarifies the fact that there are no other areas (words) to describe actions in reality except, Able and unableImagined abilites or uncaused ableness or inability, as you have postualted are no more real than Chaos or randomnessDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Able or unable in Reality, ZD, not just from a perspective or imagined scenario and thats all that matters is reality. The blocking is reality, the blocking made it unable in reality, not just from ones perspectivehere is the difference in your position and mine.Imagining what the sunflowers abilites are or are not in theory is not what is happening in reality. reality says at any given moment it is either responding or it is not, depending on sources outside itself.What was actually blocking the signal in reality and what was happening at that moment to make able or unable. Non-reality is imagining what thier abilites or capabilites were or were not in that moment, only one was real. Guess which oneStarting to get it?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.