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

Hi Dawn Bertot, sorry I don't agree. Simple, when I DO use a coin toss and DON'T attempt to control it in any way, and THEN use the random result. In those conditions it is necessarily unpredictable and therefore can result in chaos.All A is B does not prove that all B is A: If you are able to control the coin toss that puts you in the A circle ...If I am able to cause the coin toss to be random that puts me in the B circle outside the A circle.My [able]ness and [willing]ness then become relatively irrelevant to whether the coin toss comes up heads (do the task) or tails (don't do the task) because they can no longer predict a positive outcome (although they will continue to predict a negative outcome).If [able]ness and [willing]ness cannot accurately predict the outcome then they are not universally applicable criteria that determine whether or not a task is completed. QED. fin.Again, if you think there are other points you have made in Message 189 that I have not answered, feel free to repeat them if you think it they counter this.Enjoy.

Hi Bertot, Now THAT is silly. Of course you are able to fall off a building even when you don't.When I was in high school I fell off the Empire State Building in New York⁽¹⁾. I was even WILLING to do so, and would be willing to repeat this experience on other buildings.Staying away from all buildings would not mean you are unable to fall off a building.It's like riding a bicycle ...... which, btw, I did this morning, riding in to town for a cup a joe at the local coffee depot. I did not get rained on, either while going or returning. I parked the bike outside and came in to check on EvC, and while I was writing my first response to you today, it started raining, and I ran out to put the bike in the shed. I did not ride the bike in the rain, but NOT because I am unwilling to ride in the rain, but because it was simpler to walk it 10 steps into the shed. My ability to ride the bike was unaffected by my not riding it. Of course theoretical ability cannot be properly judged until you have actually demonstrated it.But your ability to fall off a building is not theoretical -- it happens all the time, with frequently harmful results (not from the falling but from the end when the falling stops ... )Nor is my ability to ride my bike theoretical - I've demonstrated that ability to the extent of having well over 9000 miles on my bikes (combined, but only 9091 are actually documented).Nor is the ability of this man to fly theoretical:Once done it is, of course, no longer theoretical.The ability of the sunflower to respond to the {sun\sunlamp} by turning is not lost when the lights are OFF (even though nobodies home). The ability of the sunflower to not respond to the {sun\sunlamp} by NOT turning is not lost when the lights are ON.Nor can the sunflower control the sun or the weather or the lamp to contol when to turn and when to not turn.Enjoy.

---

Notes:

​

⁽¹⁾ - I intentionally tripped myself when standing on the first step and fell onto the pavement with mild abrasions that were worth the effort ...

Hi Dawn Bertot,just the high points for now ... And this is you being dishonest about how the [able]ness and [willing]ness apply to the task.No, this "unable to act in a normal fashion" is a red herring, as how the OCD behaves is not necessarily normal for you or I, but it is normal for them. I should probably have used words less pejorative to describe this: in addition to common behavior similar to you or I, the OCD person has behavior that is compelled/compulsive/driven where their ableness and willingness are no longer factors in predicting their behavior.The OCD person can be able to accomplish tasks in their usual manner, and they can be willing to accomplish tasks in their usual manner, but these are not sufficient to predict the behavior of the OCD person. Such a person has strongly compelled behavior that also affect their completion of tasks and that ALSO needs to be incorporated into any prediction paradigm regarding completion of tasks.Let me simplify this for you (if I can):Premise 1: IF [able]ness affects the completion of a specific task AND
Premise 2: IF [willing]ness affects the completion of a same specific task
Conclusion A: THEN [able]ness and [willing]ness can be used to predict some possibilities regarding completion of the specific task. Premise 3: IF [able]ness and[willing]ness are the ONLY factors that affect the completion of a specific task,
Conclusion B: THEN [able]ness and [willing]ness will predict ALL possibilities regarding completion of the specific task:

1. able and willing -- task WILL be completed.
2. able but unwilling -- task will NOT be completed.
3. unable but willing -- task will NOT be completed.
4. unable and unwilling -- task will NOT be completed.

The Dawn Bertot Hypothesis: [able]ness and [willing]ness are sufficient to predict ALL possibilities regarding completion of the specific task. To become a scientific theory the hypothesis must be tested and it must have a falsification test.The falsification test would be any instance where [able]ness and [willing]ness are NOT sufficient to predict ALL possibilities regarding completion of the specific task.ie -- IF [able]ness and [willing]ness are known and the behavior predicted by them does NOT occur, THEN the hypothesis is falsified. Now we come to the test examples to see how the hypothesis holds up:

1. the sunflower:
   Test if [able]ness and [willing]ness are sufficient to predict the behavior of a sunflower when light is on, when light is on and moved, when light is off, and when light is off and moved.
   • preconditions:
     1. sunflower is able to turn to face the sunlamp
     2. sunflower is able to detect if sunlight present
     3. willingness does not apply (there is nothing to be willing)
   • test #1 - with lamp on
     1. sunflower able to turn to face the sunlamp,
     2. sunflower able to detect sunlight
     3. sunflower turns to face the sunlamp
     4. result positive: ability predicts behavior.
   • test #2 - with lamp on, moved to new location
     1. sunflower able to turn to face the sunlamp,
     2. sunflower able to detect sunlight
     3. sunflower turns to face the new location
     4. result positive: ability predicts behavior.
   • test #3 - with lamp off
     1. sunflower able to turn to face the sunlamp,
     2. sunflower able to detect sunlight
     3. sunflower does not move, but already facing sunlamp
     4. result inconclusive: ability not tested.
   • test #4 - with lamp off, moved to new location
     1. sunflower able to turn to face the sunlamp,
     2. sunflower able to detect sunlight
     3. sunflower does NOT turn to face the sunlamp
     4. result negative: ability does NOT predict behavior.
   • Result: [able]ness unable to predict behavior in test #4 (negative result).
2. a person with OCD:
   Test if [able]ness and [willing]ness are sufficient to predict the behavior of a person with OCD (Pw/OCD) with lifting a 200 lb weight when the lifting bar is clean and when the lifting bar is dirty.
   • preconditions:
     1. Pw/OCD is able to lift a 200 lb weight
     2. Ps/OCD may be willing to lift a 200 lb weight
     3. Ps/OCD may be UNwilling to lift a 200 lb weight
     4. Psw?OCD is compulsive hand washer if objects touched are dirty
   • test #1 - handlebar of 200 lb weight is clean
     1. Pw/OCD is able to lift the 200 lb weight
     2. Ps/OCD willing to lift the 200 lb weight
     3. Ps/OCD does lift the 200 lb weight
     4. result positive: ability and willingness predict behavior.
   • test #2 - handlebar of 200 is clean
     1. Pw/OCD is able to lift the 200 lb weight
     2. Ps/OCD UNwilling to lift the 200 lb weight
     3. Ps/OCD does NOT lift the 200 lb weight
     4. result positive: ability and willingness predict behavior.
   • test #3 - handlebar of 200 is dirty
     1. Pw/OCD is able to lift the 200 lb weight
     2. Ps/OCD willing to lift the 200 lb weight
     3. Ps/OCD does NOT lift the 200 lb weight but washes hands instead
     4. result negative: ability and willingness do NOT predict behavior.
   • test #4 - handlebar of 200 is dirty
     1. Pw/OCD is able to lift the 200 lb weight
     2. Ps/OCD UNwilling to lift the 200 lb weight
     3. Ps/OCD does NOT lift the 200 lb weight but washes hands instead
     4. result inconclusive: ability and willingness not tested.
   • Result: [willing]ness unable to predict behavior in test #3 (negative result).
   Analysis: hypothesis was tested by two independent test cases, cases that test each of the two different aspects of the Dawn Bertot Hypothesis:
   • Test Case (A) removes [willing]ness from consideration, and then tests variation in [able]ness to explain behavior.
   • Test Case (B) holds [able]ness constant and positive,
     1. so that it cannot prevent completion of the task, and
     2. so that it cannot be argued that [able]ness and [willing]ness are not tested together, and
     3. then tests variation in [willing]ness to explain behavior.
   • the result was that the hypothesis was falsified in both cases.
   • CONCLUSIONS:
     1. [able]ness alone is NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior when [willing]ness is neutralized.
     2. [willing]ness alone is NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior when [able]ness is neutralized.
     3. [able]ness and [willing]ness together are NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior.
     The hypothesis is falsified, and should be discarded.

I look forward to your response.Again, if you think there are other points you have made in Message 194 that I have not answered, and that you feel are pertinent, please feel free to repeat them, especially if you think it they counter this.Enjoy.

Hi Dawn Bertot, You really really really do not want to know .... But please, if I have missed something critical from the posts I've replied to, feel free to bring them up again. There was too much to reply to every point, and I am less interested in some points when the logic shows your concept is falsified ... imho.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : r

Hi Dawn Bertot, See 1) Moving Goalposts...Yes that was insensitive of me to describe OCD like that. See The sunflower test - once more, when it comes around on the guitar, with feeling ..., where I have corrected this, as well as expanded on how it affects the results.Again, feel free to repeat anythings you think I may have glossed over in cutting down my replies to only tediously long lengths (as opposed to terminally long) Enjoy.