Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 169 of 211 (634167)
09-19-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Dawn Bertot
09-17-2011 9:10 PM


the other words . . .
Hi again Dawn Bertot,
Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonest
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.
Message 156: Again he (the soldier) is unable, even if has the ABILITY, or he is ABLE himself. Because inability or unable doesnt have just to do with the person or his wishes, or his compulsions, voluntary or involuntary, it has to do with reality itself and the circumstances that surround it
The soldier is unable, no matter his wishes or abilites, but this does not desribe something different than unable, becuase Unable is a principle of reality no the person
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.
I admitted along time ago there were many other possibilites under the category of response, but it appears they wont change the outcome of either category, if the goal or task cannot be completed
So you admit that there ARE other factors that control whether a task is undertaken or completed.
Great, so what word would you use to distinguish these other factors, that dont fall under or desribe willing or able?
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.
A tree is no longer able to stand upright and falls over when conditions of decay are sufficient enough to cause it to fall down. Then it is no longer able to complete THAT PART of its function, standing upright
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-17-2011 9:10 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 6:48 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 178 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 7:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 171 of 211 (634194)
09-19-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dawn Bertot
09-18-2011 4:59 PM


apathy, ambivalence and dishonesty
Hi Dawn Bertot,
As I pointed out earlier apathy and ambivlence do not happen is a mila-second and they cannot be seperated from will itself. RAZD would need to demonstrate how one could have apathy without will in the first place, for apathy to be not willing.
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:
Message 127
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.
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:
Message 47: The question is were they willing and able to toss the coin. The answer is yes.
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?
Message 101: Here is a hint. RAZD has tried ambivalent and apathy. His problem is that he has assumed that where there is ambivalence or apathy there is no will. He has assumed this, he has not demonstrated it
For his contention and example of these words to catagorize another area, he first needs to establish that one has no Will at all, even when apathetic, or approaching apathy
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?
Message 152:
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.
Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonest
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?
There is no need to resescribe another term to make it fit willing or able, because there is no other term for either of them, IMV
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, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : subT

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2011 4:59 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 172 of 211 (634196)
09-19-2011 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by xongsmith
09-19-2011 7:17 PM


Re: I forgot
Hi xongsmith, and welcome to the thread.
Maybe you have yet to perceive a response because I FORGOT to make one.
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by xongsmith, posted 09-19-2011 7:17 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 173 of 211 (634204)
09-19-2011 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dawn Bertot
09-18-2011 8:05 PM


several terms already provided - no refutation
Hi again Dawn Bertot,
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.
Amusingly, several have been supplied. See Message 169 for a recap of those words.
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)
To which is added [chaotic] conditions and [forgetful]ness.
i have shown that none of his attempts at terms thus far will work
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.
fortunately reality is not a perconception,
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2011 8:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2011 10:09 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 175 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-19-2011 10:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 179 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 11:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 180 of 211 (634363)
09-21-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Dawn Bertot
09-20-2011 6:26 PM


Re: The sunflower test - again
Hi 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
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.
Control is not the issues. if the sunflower can perform its internal functions, however, whenever, wherever it is ABLE to complete its function
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.
the sunflower illustration in no way removes the only two categories unless you are speaking about unwilling, simply because it does not apply
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.
[willing]ness ≡ 0 [programed] & [positive input] [programed] & [negative input] not[programed] to [respond]
[able] to [respond] [programed], [positive input]
& [able] to [respond]
response made

[programed], [negative input]
but [able] to [respond]
response not made

not[programed]
but [able] to [respond]
response not made
not[able] to [respond]
[programed], [positive input]
but not[able] to [respond]
response not made
[programed], [negative input]
but not[able] to [respond]
response not made
not[programed]
& not[able] to [respond]
response not made
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.
true because ableness is decided not by an organism but by laws already in place that act upon that organism.
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.
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 functions
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.
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 unableness
Existing laws already in place will determine whether a thing can funtion or not
You agreed to the definition of what determines ableness in Message 30:
Dawn Bertot writes:
I am fine with these definitions, all I need is another word that does not include Willing or Able or a combination of the two,or the opposites obviously. Is there another word
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.
Existing laws already in place will determine whether a thing can funtion or not
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.
[willing]ness ≡ 0 [programed] & [positive input] [programed] & [negative input]
[able] to [respond] [programed], [positive input]
& [able] to [respond]
response made

[programed], [negative input]
& [able] to [respond]
response NOT made

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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 6:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by rueh, posted 09-21-2011 8:01 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 183 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2011 1:16 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 184 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2011 1:29 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 182 of 211 (634443)
09-21-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by rueh
09-21-2011 8:01 AM


Re: The sunflower test - again
Hi rueh, thanks
I'll take this quickly before I get to the rest of Dawn Bertot's posts.
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?
No, the needed resource (etc) is the ability to detect the external stimulus when present. The sunflower as tested has that ability.
Certainly the flower is not able to make the sun shine or clouds to form.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by rueh, posted 09-21-2011 8:01 AM rueh has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 185 of 211 (634566)
09-22-2011 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dawn Bertot
09-20-2011 6:48 PM


Re: the other words . . .
Hi Dawn Bertot,
Forgive me for taking so long to get back, I've gotten myself involved in responses on another thread that have sucked up more time than I intended, and I've had some work to do on the house before winter, Priorities, eh?
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.
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 ignored
So 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
This doesn't make sense to me. When I look at the definitions we agreed on, they applied to an actor and an action to be taken: either the actor is [able] to take the action or not AND [willing] to take the action or not. Those are the boundaries of the issue.
If you go outside those boundaries, then we can consider that Little Tommie is [able] to tie his shoes but unwilling to do so, and his sister Matilda is [willing] to tie them for him, but un[able] to catch him to do it.
As a result, the crew did not send a response?
... Some law of a physical nature was interrupted, broke or ignored ...
Can you provide any examples of this occurring?
Are you saying that perhaps the sun doesn't 'rise' one day (according to the laws of physics regarding the earth spinning on it's axis) and this makes the sunflower un[able] to function? Yet we know the sunflower IS [able] to function, it just doesn't get the external stimulus because of absence of sunlight.
So 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
Perhaps the sun "stopping in the sky" prevents the crew from responding? How does this even begin to work?
No, the "source from which able and unable" comes from within the actor and from the technical devices or resources in their control (definitions, Message 26):
Def 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.
Def 2. having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity, etc, to do something: able to swim
Def 3: possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective able to perform under the contract
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
So the whim of a superior officer, someone with different needs and agenda, is a "law of reality"???
Is this superior officer the reason that I end up riding my bicycle in the rain even though I am un[willin]g (but [able]) to do so?
No, Dawn Bertot, these are not things that make the soldier un[able] to perform the task - he has all the [able]ity to do so. They ARE reasons that the task is not completed.
wrong these are responses, or we could call them responses to reality and I could add 10000 more to the list. ...
Just like [willing]ness is a response to reality of no different character than each of these listed items. Thus we should discard [willing]ness?
The fact that you can add "10000 more to the list" doesn't make them any less an invalidation of your claim that ONLY [willing]ness and [able]ness are important - in fact it weakens your position.
... 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 us
Where have you demonstrated that? I must have missed it in the process of answer each one of your posts. It seems to me that you are just claiming this because they do in fact invalidate your pet hypothesis, and the resulting cognitive dissonance forces you to develop some ad hoc rational to convince yourself otherwise.
... because they dont decide what able and willing is or is not. Reality does this for us
Curiously, they don't affect the [able]ness or the [willing]ness of the actor to complete the action, but they do affect whether or not the action is completed.
That means that the [able]ness or the [willing]ness of the actor to complete the action are not sufficient to determine whether the action is actually completed or not -- as you have previously claimed.
I 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 accomplish
Again, please show where you have done this -- all I see is you making unsubstantiated claims.
Again you appear to be moving the goal posts ...
The physical reality of the earth spinning on its axis means that there is no sunlight when it is behind the other side of the earth, and that whether there is sunlight when it is on the same side of the earth is affected by the physical reality of clouds and weather.
These are not things that have a capacity to be [able] or [willing], they are inanimate objects exhibiting their normal everyday behavior. This behavior does affect whether the sunflower turns to face the sun, but they do not affect the [able]ness or the [willing]ness of the sunflower.
There is no external aspect here that have the capacity to be [able] or [willing], yet sometimes the action is completed and sometimes it is not: [able]ness and [willing]ness are not sufficient to explain these differences.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : No reason given.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 6:48 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 12:21 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 186 of 211 (634579)
09-22-2011 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Dawn Bertot
09-20-2011 7:09 PM


Re: the other words . . . chaos rules
Hi again Dawn Bertot.
I've been out riding my bicycle 3 times today. It has also rained, but my un[willing]ness to ride in the rain was not a factor -- it did not rain while I was riding.
It was not my un[willing]ness that caused it not to rain while I was riding.
It was not my [able]ity or in[able]ity to forecast weather that caused it not to rain while I was riding. It was just chance -- the chance that it didn't rain even though the sky looked like it was going to at any minute.
There is no such thing as chaos.
I beg to differ.
Chaos - Wikipedia
quote:
Science and mathematics
  • any state of confusion or disorder, see disorder (disambiguation)
  • Randomness, a lack of intelligible pattern or combination
  • Chaos theory, a branch of mathematics and physics that deals with the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems
  • Chaos (amoeba), a type of giant amoeba
  • Polynomial chaos, an expansion in probability theory, invented by Norbert Wiener
  • 19521 Chaos, a Trans-Neptunian Kuiper belt object
  • Chaosnet, an early set of network communication protocols
  • CHAOS (Linux distribution), designed for creating ad hoc computer clusters

Chaos theory has practical applications
Chaos theory - Wikipedia
quote:
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.
Chaos theory is applied in many scientific disciplines: mathematics, programming, microbiology, biology, computer science, economics, [6][7][8] engineering,[9] finance,[10][11] meteorology,philosophy, physics, politics, population dynamics, psychology, and robotics.
Chaotic behavior is also recognized in many aspects of the natural world.
Chaos is a human expression with no basis in reality
Chaos theory is a recognition of the role of chaos in natural systems.
Chaos theory has also been used to generate random numbers.
The result of the coins flip is determined by strength, pressure, wieight of the coin and anyother law already in place, acted upon the coin
it is not chaotic or random, because those do not actually exist, its only the laws of nature or reality, going through thier motions
The 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 were
In other words you just assume that IF you were able to understand and control all the factors involved, that THEN you could produce consistent heads or tails at will.
In reality, however, a person using a coin as a random generator will not attempt such control, but will instead use a common approach, with a variety of slight variations due to the biological improbability of exactly repeating any action in precisely the same way, and where these minute variations have chaotically large effect on the results: large end differences from minute initial variation, built into the biological system and surrounding conditions (wind, acceleration, etc).
Curiously, in reality, we see that overall probability shows mostly heads and tails in comparable numbers -- approaching very similar numbers as the total number of tosses increases. We also see, in reality, some results that are not heads or tails - the coin is not caught, falls in a crack, rolls off the table or it even lands on edge: rare compared to the normal heads or tails, but occurring in reality, none the less. Normally we say that the probability is 50:50, but that is not correct in reality. In reality it is more like 49.99999% heads, 49.99999% tails and 0.00002% other. Usually, in reality, when there is an "other" result, the toss is repeated to obtain a heads or a tails, because that is the desired randomized result.
There is no such thing as randomness or chaos
Amusingly the pattern of heads and tails from a large number of tosses is random - in the number of heads in a run, the number of tails in a run, the frequency of runs of specific lengths.
Curiously, if actual random patterns can be generated with little effort then randomness (and chaos) does exist in reality.
here 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 happen
Ah, but could your God make you toss "heads 1000 times out of 1000, without any majic involved?"
The possibility of a super race being able to sift out all the factors involved and control their actions precisely, does not mean that it is within the human capacity to understand and control. If it is impossible for a human brain to understand and of the human body to control all the factors then the end result is the same as if the system is entirely chaotic naturally -- the results are indistinguishable to a human being.
Chaos is either a natural element of the universe ...
Or it simply means the natural inability of biological beings to understand and control all the variables involved, particularly in conditions where small initial variations result in large scale differences.
There is no such thing as randomness or chaos
here is an example. If God exists and he is all knowing, ...
Then everything is predetermined, and [able]ness and [willing]ness are completely irrelevant, there is no free will.
So 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 everytime
Therefore 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 feat
So while I have the ability from a logical standpoint, Im unable due to an outside inability
Now 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?
Yes, and you can further claim that your in[able]ity to understand, and your in[able]ity to control all the factors, actually en[able] you to generate a random series of coin tosses in random patterns in the number of heads in a run, the number of tails in a run, the frequency of runs of specific lengths.
That makes you simultaneously un[able] AND [able], a rather curious situation to be sure.
No randomness in reality, just inaccuracy on my part by not abiding by the laws of nature,, correct?
Just to be precise: what you are claiming here is equivalent to saying that you are unable to tie your shoes and that makes you unable to answer the phone ... which is, of course, ridiculous. Remember this?
Message 125 : 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.
... and your response?
Message 152: Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonest
This is precisely what you are doing with the coin toss scenario.
It is possible to envisage an [able]ity to be control the coin toss precisely to cause a desired result, but it is not practical.
It is practical to envisage a [willing]ness to operate a coin toss in an unpredictable manner and an [able]ity to generate random results from it.
That doesn't make you (the crew of the second ship, etc) either [able] or [willing] to accomplish the task at hand (respond to the enterprise, etc) it only makes you [able] and [willing] to toss the coin in a random manner. What you do as a result of the coin toss is then randomly generated.
here is an example. If God exists and he is all knowing,
Here's another "what if" scenario: what if god/s are almost all knowing and almost all powerful in their ability to create a universe, and they decide that they don't want to know or be able to predict the results of their creation ... what if they intentionally include chaos as a randomizing factor to create the greatest possible diversity, including things they cannot predict. What if their parting words are "surprise me\us"?
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 7:09 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 1:08 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 187 of 211 (634582)
09-22-2011 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Dawn Bertot
09-20-2011 11:46 PM


Re: several terms already provided - no refutation
Hi again Dawn Bertot
There is no aspect of [able]ness or [willing]ness that can control these external conditions.
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?
If you are able to know, and able to employ the necessary laws to make the earth stop spinning while still maintaining life on the planet in general, and the life of a sunflower in particular, then (a) you would effectively be a god, and (b) all you would do is make an external stimulus appear that already appears naturally.
The ability of the sunflower to turn to face the sun would not be altered. It would still operate according to its internal program (natural laws, etc).
But you can also use a sunlamp to make the sunflower turn where you want ... naturally ... by taking advantage of the program and the ability of the sunflower to compulsively turn to face the stimulus.
YOU may be [able] and [wiling] to do this, however it does not affect the [able]ness of the sunflower or its compulsion to behave according to the internal program. And it STILL won't turn when the sun is not out or the lamp is not on, even though it is still [able] to do so and is still compulsively behaving according to the internal program.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 11:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 9:13 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 191 of 211 (635013)
09-25-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Dawn Bertot
09-22-2011 1:16 AM


Re: The sunflower test - again & again ...
Hi Dawn Bertot,
Sorry to take so long getting back to you, but I've had other priorities and demands on my time.
I have been able and willing to get out riding my bicycle several times in the last week, and the weather here has been rather unsettled, raining most days at some point and sunny at others.
I managed to ride my bike without riding in the rain. Although I may have delayed starting when it was raining it didn't rain once I was out. Again, it was not because I am unwilling to ride in the rain that it didn't rain once I was out, just that the situation did not occur.
So you are saying that an inability or unableness overrides willingness, correct?
No, I am saying that OCD people are partly like the sunflower: when a specific stimulus occurs they behave in a specific way, but when it doesn't occur that they can behave in a more normal fashion.
This is independent of [able]ness and [willing]ness.
Would you say that its internal functions ARE the function of the sunflower and they are its purpose as an organism?
Organisms got purpose?
The internal functions are what make it a functioning sunflower -- isn't that rather tautological?
Are you asking if they are [able] to be a sunflower because they [are] a sunflower?
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:
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
Fishing expedition?
The purpose of the sunflower is to confound you and falsify your claim that only [able]ness and [willing]ness apply. So far it is able to accomplish that task.
• 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?
Forgive me RAZD these are really stupid questions
it 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
It's not a "program of not responding" it completes its program by responding and it completes its program by not responding.
They may seem stupid, but you haven't answered them. Let me flesh it out for you:
  1. Why does the sunflower turn to match the location of the sun on a sunny day? -- it is "ABLE to complete its function" ... but
  2. 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?
    What is different about the sunflower?
  3. Why does the sunflower turn to match the location of the sunlamp when it is on? -- it is" ABLE to complete its function" ... but
  4. 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 is different about the sunflower?
What is different about the sunflower that causes response in one instance and no response in the other?
If there is no difference in the sunflower, then the result is not dependent on the [able]ness of the sunflower.
We have already established that there is no [willing]ness involved in this plant,
Thus we establish that we cannot explain the different responses of the sunflower with the [able]ness and [willing]ness of the sunflower, but that we need to look at a wider set of behavior control categories for the sunflower.
We find that [program]ing answers the issue of different behaviors.
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, Yes
Correction 1: response IS the issue, it is the action that applies to the situation.
Correction 2: is it ABLE to NOT react, at ALL times, according to its programming, Yes. Is it ABLE to react at ALL times according to its programming, Yes.
The [able]ness of the sunflower to do both programed actions\responses is simultaneously present at ALL times.
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't react, however in ALL times it is "ABLE to react" ...
That [able]ness does not determine the response.
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 decisions
Without showing why [able]ness does not determine the response.
The earth is able to orbit the sun? Is that where you are going?
Do you remember this:
Message 152 Dawn Bertot:
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.
Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonest
So if you are not doing this, then we are back again to the sunflower and the task of turning to face the lightsource, rather than planets orbiting the sun.
Being desperate is claiming "that it is now a matter of ableness" without showing how that explains the different behaviors of the sunflower.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2011 1:16 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 9:47 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 192 of 211 (635015)
09-25-2011 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dawn Bertot
09-22-2011 1:29 AM


Re: The sunflower test - again now with flower power added!!!!
Hi again Dawn Bertot,
Laws\rules and programs do not have [able]ness, they either work or they don't.
Im not even going to touch that one, do you see what you just did, you affirmed my position
Again, I'll be more specific.
A program does not have [able]ness - it either is functional or it is non-functional. If it is non-functional then there is something wrong in the coding. When it is functional the output of the program is controlled by the coding according to external input that is not part of the program. The existence or absence of the external input does not change the functionality of the program. The results of the program are different with different external inputs, but that does not affect the functionality of the program.
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 thee
So the cause of the response not being received by the enterprise was that it was blocked, and not because they were unable or unwilling. Thanks.
wrong, 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
Well ... I was in Haight/Asbury in the '60's, and I did own a VW bus with flowers on it ...
Problem is, the sunflower can still grow, blossom, be pollinated (by birds and bees -- another external control ... that could affect the pollination now ... ) and bear seeds -- and you previously conceded that it was able to fill it's internal functions.
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 God
And I predicted that you would mention it.
Curiously I assume that the goal posts were where they were at the beginning Message 18:
Message 14:
Message 1: My first goal is to restate Dawn Bertot's position to show that I understand it:
Does this show all the possibilities as Spock implied (IIRC the comment was that they did not respond because they were either unwilling or unable to respond, or something similar):


willing
not[willing]
able
willing & able
reply made

not[willing] but able
reply not made
not[able]
willing but not[able]
reply not made
not[willing] & not[able]
reply not made
Where not[X] is the logical form for everything that is not included in [X] (used like (-x) in maths).
In other words, is it your position that there are four possible outcomes:
  1. willing & able - reply made
  2. not[willing] but able - reply not made = Spock's "unwilling"
  3. willing but not[able] - reply not made = Spock's "unable"
  4. not[willing] & not[able] - reply not made = both
and
In other words, is it your position that there are four possible outcomes:
1.willing & able - reply made
2.not[willing] but able - reply not made = Spock's "unwilling"
3.willing but not[able] - reply not made = Spock's "unable"
4.not[willing] & not[able] - reply not made = both
Yes true, this is my position.
That's where the goal posts were at the start.
Now I'm going to ride my bike, and I am betting that it won't rain.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2011 1:29 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 6:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 195 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 10:05 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 196 of 211 (635031)
09-25-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Dawn Bertot
09-25-2011 10:05 PM


Re: The sunflower test - again now with flower power added!!!!
Hi Dawn Bertot,
Hot dogs with everything but catsup please (salsa instead - yum)
Starting to get it?
That you're being dishonest and moving the goalposts? ... got that long ago . . .
Actor
ableness
+
willingness
+
?
action or
inaction
All the impacting aspects need to line up in the boxes to be involved.
For the sunflower ? = programing
Sunflower
ableness
+
willingness
+
program
action or
inaction
For the OCD person ? = compulsive behavior
OCD
ableness
+
willingness
+
compulsion
action or
inaction
OCD person without external stimulus is not a different person than OCD person with external stimulus - ableness and willingness don't change - what changes is external to the person, just as for the sunflower, and the behavior with external stimulus is similar to that of the sunflower: compulsive action or inaction
Enjoy
Edited by Zen Deist, : finished
Edited by Zen Deist, : No reason given.
Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 10:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-25-2011 10:50 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 198 of 211 (635872)
10-02-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2011 12:21 AM


1) Moving Goalposts...
Hi Dawn Bertot,
I'm going to take a break from the Scientific Knowledge thread to pick this up again.
There will be three replies to this post for clarity and to enable followup on the different sub-threads involved. This is about the goalposts.
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 scenario
Of 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. crybaby
hence 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
Going back to my flow diagram:
(from Message 118):
quote:
Here is my simplified graphic, let's see if this helps:
Notes:
  1. 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.
  2. This is the original "unable to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unable, this is where it shows up.
  3. This is the original "unwilling to respond" condition posed by the "Spock" character. If they are unwilling, this is where it shows up.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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:
  1. the CREW was unable to respond
    OR
  2. 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
... but My original implication was that it applies to reality. Remember me saying at one point forget about the scenario ...
... because of an outside influence, Kahn. IOWs something other than thier inability
OR their unwillingness. Excellent.
You have now said, in essence, that either [box 1] or [box 7] is involved: the crew did not receive or did not send a response because of "an outside influence" that put a block on communication.
You are now no longer talking about the crew being able or willing, you have moved the goalposts to be amorphously external to the crew and are now talking about additional factors involved where you can make up conditions showing (to you) either [able]ness or [willing]ness factors.
Something outside themselves impeded thier goal of getting a message thru. thier willingness is not simply to respond,but get the message thru
(shhTHUCKt) (boom) (boom) ... once again, the sound of ...
... goal posts being uprooted and moved to a more "convenient" location for your game.
Where would you get the nusty idea that unable only refers to the actor and the things at his disposal.
From the definitions. If someone is able to lift a 200 lb weight, that doesn't mean that either you or I are necessarily able or unable to do so. The [able]ness that can be observed, determined, and used to predict behavior is necessarily related to the actor and the action.
If you cannot predict behavior from your increasingly externalized [able]nesses and [willing]nesses, then they are increasingly irrelevant to the question of whether or not a certain task gets accomplished.
Moving the goalposts does not improve your claim.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 12:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 199 of 211 (635877)
10-02-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2011 12:21 AM


2) dishonesty, intentional or unintentional
Hi Dawn Bertot, this is the second reply issue
... but My original implication was that it applies to reality. Remember me saying at one point forget about the scenario ...
... because of an outside influence, Kahn. IOWs something other than thier inability
Message 152: I think you are confusing intellectual choices with simply reality. A tree is no longer able to stand upright and falls over when conditions of decay are sufficient enough to cause it to fall down. Then it is no longer able to complete THAT PART of its function, standing upright
The sunflower is "unable" to make the sun rise and "unable" to keep clouds from blocking the sun, not because it fails to acquire the [able]ness required, but because it is impossible for it to have the [able]ness required to control those things.
If Little Tommie tells his teacher, "Sorry, I was willing and able to do my homework, but I was unable to control the Universe, and that is why my homework did not get done," I just have a small feeling that this would not wash with the teacher.
If this seems unreasonable to you, the reason is simple. Going back to the definitions:
Stage 2: definitions: 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 replied (Message 30, quoting the above definition in full): "I am fine with these definitions,"
... I point out to you that it is impossible for the tree to control the conditions that cause decay, impossible for the sunflower to control the sun and the weather, and impossible for Little Tommie to control the universe, and this means it is impossible to meet the [able]ness definitions to have such control over nature\reality.
In addition, being un[able] to control nature\reality, does not mean that there is no [able]ness to let nature\reality run it's course.
It is possible to invent all kinds of "able" and "unable" scenarios to suit your claim - the question is whether they can really be honestly applied. To be applicable to any task, they must have predictive ability to ascertain whether a task in question will be completed or not.
The ability of Little Tommie to tie his shoes does not predict whether or not he will answer the phone.
The inability of Little Tommie to control the universe also does not predict whether or not he will answer the phone.
Thus, [able]ness to control nature\reality, either to make it do (or not do) something or to let it do something, has no predictive capacity to tell if a given task will be completed or not: you will always be un[able] to control nature\reality and you will simultaneously always be [able] to let nature\reality to take it's course.
Again, as I said in Message 125:
quote:
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.
You replied in Message 152: "Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonest"
This is what you are now doing. It is still dishonest, whether it is intentional on your part or not is irrelevant. I give you the benefit of the doubt, and thus I am pointing out that your position is inconsistent with an honest use of the terms able and willing.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 12:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-03-2011 9:43 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 200 of 211 (635880)
10-02-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2011 12:21 AM


3) zero point on the [able]ness axis ...
Hi again Dawn Bertot, this is the third reply issue
Message 152: I think you are confusing intellectual choices with simply reality. A tree is no longer able to stand upright and falls over when conditions of decay are sufficient enough to cause it to fall down. Then it is no longer able to complete THAT PART of its function, standing upright
Correction: as noted in the previous message, it is impossible for the tree to ever control nature\reality, and rather than being un[able] to control nature\reality (while simultaneously [able] to allow nature\reality to follow it's course, there is no +/-[able]ness possible and thus it does not apply here.
There is no way you can predict the behavior of the tree from these simultaneously coexisting [able]ities. If you cannot predict the behavior, then whether or not some [able]ness you invent to be involved is irrelevant to the question of task completion.
The tree will always be un[able] to control nature\reality AND it will simultaneously always be [able] to let nature\reality to take it's course.
The only way that these contradictions can be resolved is for the [able]ness to ≡ zero, that elusive place on the [able]ness axis where there is no +[able]ness and no -[able]ness ... just zero[able]ness.
You have previously agreed that there is a 'zero point' on the [willing]ness scale, as it is impossible for the sunflowers (and trees) to be either willing or unwilling.
Thank you for helping me find the 'zero point' on the [able]ness axis to match the one we have on the [willing]ness axis:
Possibilities + [Willing]ness 0 [Willing]ness - [Willing]ness
+ [Able]ness Able and Willing Able Able and Unwilling
0 [Able]ness Willing (indeterminate) Unwilling
- [Able]ness Unable and Willing Unable Unable and Unwilling
Thus we have
  • three (3) conditions where we can predict that the task is likely to be completed due to positive ableness and positive willingness, (green)
  • five (5) conditions where we can predict that the task is likely to be not completed due to negative ableness or negative willingness, ... and ...
  • one (1) case where the result is indeterminate: we cannot predict whether the task will be completed or not from the ableness and willingness criteria.
Therefore they are not, cannot be, universally applicable criteria. QED. fin.
If you think any remaining points in Message 188 need to be addressed then please repeat them: I'm trying to reduce our workload here by focusing on critical issues and elements.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : subtitle
Edited by Zen Deist, : table colors - palegreen instead of green and tomato instead of red

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2011 12:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-02-2011 7:15 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 209 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-03-2011 10:07 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024