Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 197 of 211 (635032)
09-25-2011 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by RAZD
09-25-2011 10:26 PM


Re: The sunflower test - again now with flower power added!!!!
That you're being dishonest and moving the goalposts? ... got that long ago .
Please explain in simple terms, without a disortation, how and why you think I am moving the goalposts. My position that able and willing apply to all reality and its laws has not moved
Perhaps you have misunderstood my original intention
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,
Again nonsense, you contrasted the person with OCD with a "Normal person", then stated he is unable to act in a certain way
are you now saying that able or unable doesnt apply to the situation you provided
For "compulsive behavior" to make any sense you have to have something to compare it with, correct? Otherwise how would you know its not normal?
Maybe you could clarify your point here in a simpler manner
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 10:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 9:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 203 of 211 (635901)
10-02-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
10-02-2011 3:47 PM


Re: zero point on the [able]ness axis ...
I'm trying to reduce our workload here by focusing on critical issues and elements.
Really, so what would your posts on this topic look like if you WERENT trying to reduce the work load? ha ha
Ill try and get to these somewhat burdesom posts as quickly as possible. It might take a while there Rand-Macnally
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 3:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 8:48 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 207 of 211 (636075)
10-03-2011 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by RAZD
10-02-2011 8:45 PM


Re: The sunflower test - once more, when it comes around on the guitar, with feeling ...
CONCLUSIONS:
i.[able]ness alone is NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior when [willing]ness is neutralized.
Correct, but Unableness will explain and describe the behavior. Unless you cna provide another word, different than unable, that means something different than unable or does not include its tenets. What is that word
ii.[willing]ness alone is NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior when [able]ness is neutralized.
Correct but unableness will explain the behavior
iii.[able]ness and [willing]ness together are NOT sufficient to explain the observed behavior.
Correct but unableness will explain it, if you apply it to something besides the mechanism, correct or did I miss something
Are you still insisting you dont need another word
The hypothesis is falsified, and should be discarded.
It would be if you werent just arguning with yourself and your false presuppositions
Listen ZD, just explain in short sentences and in simple terms what you think I am missing
its my belief you give these elaborate and complicated explanations to distract the reader from the fact that you really do not have an answer to my query.
Prove me wrong with simple language and simple sentences, if you think I am missing something
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 8:45 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 208 of 211 (636081)
10-03-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by RAZD
10-02-2011 3:30 PM


Re: 2) dishonesty, intentional or unintentional
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:
This is a complete misapplication of how I am representing able and unable. In reality one thing affects another. Reality and its tenets make me able and unable at times to accomplish this or that
if tommy tells his teacher that he could not accomplish his homework because his house burnt down, it does not matter whether he was able to control that or not. It makes him unable to accomplish the task, even if he has has some ability to do it or not internally. Is the light bulb starting to come on
It is possible to invent all kinds of "able" and "unable" scenarios to suit your claim -
Hogwash, reality is what it is, I dont invent skincancer, even if I cant control the sun directly
reality and what takes place each and every second is determined by myself and how reality affects that ability and inability, thus making me able or unable
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.
You have from the start misrepresented my position on able and unable. I told you early on that reality dictates the use of words, not the other way around
I agreed with those definitions because they were understood to apply to a person accomplishing a task. They are only words and definitions. But as i have pointed out regularly, they dont ACCURATELY reflect reality and how able and unable must be applied
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 3:30 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 209 of 211 (636086)
10-03-2011 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
10-02-2011 3:47 PM


Re: 3) zero point on the [able]ness axis ...
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.
This is an elaborate attempt to avoid a simple point. Prediction has nothing to do with whether the tree at some point will no longer be ABLE to stand due to internal and external conditions
its either standing or its not. its either able or not able to stand at some undefinable but real moment in time, irregardless of my predictions or not
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.
Shut up (While laughing really hard)
The tree is at a very specific slit second in time, no longer ABLE to complete atleast that part of its function, standing upright because internal and external factors(reality) made it unable to accomplish that task
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 3:47 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 210 of 211 (636090)
10-03-2011 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by RAZD
10-02-2011 5:05 PM


Re: several terms already provided - still no refutation
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.
Ability without actual application is described as Unable at that moment in reality to perform its intended function. Its not doing what it can do, even if a percieved ability exists, or even if the MECHANICHS exist inside it are still available
In reality ZD, there is only things happening or not happening at any given moment due to and depending on what a specific organisms function entails and how outside external factors are affecting it
percieved abilites without application and actual function are not ACTUALLY happening. Only that which is happening is actually happening. Therefore, it is at any given moment able or unable depending on realities conditions provided to it, to perform its function
Only one of those is happening at any given moment. Light (able), no light (unable)
Percieved abilites without application are not a reality at any given momment, it has to be actually happening to be actual and reality
It can NEVER be Able and Unable in the same moment. its always one or the other. You imaginary scenario where this ability still exists, even when it is unable (no light), is just that IMAGINARY. You cant have both at the sametime and there are only two alternatives
the only reality is Able or Unable at any given mila-second
Is the light bulb starting to shine?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 5:05 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 211 of 211 (636134)
10-04-2011 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by RAZD
10-02-2011 8:45 PM


Re: The sunflower test - once more, when it comes around on the guitar, with feeling ...
test #4 - with lamp off, moved to new location
i.sunflower able to turn to face the sunlamp,
ii.sunflower able to detect sunlight
iii.sunflower does NOT turn to face the sunlamp
iv.result negative: ability does NOT predict behavior.
Result: [able]ness unable to predict behavior in test #4 (negative result)
Do you see any IRONY in your last line here. Pick out a word in your last line that might make the sentence ironic
No ZD, the lamp is not ABLE to turn and face the lamp, because the sunflower did not turn and face the lamp when it was off.
There is only one thing happening at a t time. Percieved ability is not actually happening, its only a contemplation
It is not actually detecting the light of the sun or the sunlamp, if it is not there to detect
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2011 8:45 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