Register | Sign In

 Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Messages Thread Titles This Thread

 EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
 2 online now: Newest Member: Neptune7 Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/1

EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House

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

Thread  Details

Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 1 of 211 (632211) 09-06-2011 10:56 AM

Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
From Message 437 on the Subjective Evidence of Gods thread:
Hi Dawn Bertot, been awhile.
Interesting, so I am unable or unwilling, to learn, correct. Can you give me another category, that is neither of these two
Try this visualization chart:

 willing not[willing] able willing & ablereply made not[willing] but ablereply 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 [X] (used like (-x) in maths. So we have a grid of (+x), (-x), (+y) and (-y) and four possible results).
Does that sum up your position?
The question then comes down to what "willing" and "able" mean, whether there is a null (0) position, and whether there exists another dimension category.
If we define "able" to mean that they have in good working order whatever is necessary to send and receive and understand the communication, and "willing" to mean caring, motivated, or inclined (etc), then we need to consider if there is a "zero" position between +x and -x for these terms.
When it comes to "willing" it may be possible to be ambivalent (a null position), answering sometimes and other times not, as more of a whim than a willingness, perhaps based on the toss of a coin.

 willing ambivalent not[willing] able willing & ablereply made ambivalent & ablereply made sometimes\occasionally not[willing] but ablereply not made not[able] willing but not[able]reply not made ambivalent but not[able]reply not made not[willing] & not[able]reply not made
Next, if there is a "Z" position\dimension with it's obverse "not{Z}"

 {Z} willing ambivalent not[willing] able {Z}, willing & ablereply made {Z}, ambivalent & ablereply made sometimes\occasionally {Z}, not[willing] but ablereply not made not[able] {Z}, willing but not[able]reply not made {Z}, ambivalent but not[able]reply not made {Z}, not[willing] & not[able]reply not made
and

 not{Z} willing ambivalent not[willing] able not{Z}, but willing & able reply not made not{Z}, ambivalent & able reply not made not{Z}, not[willing] but ablereply not made not[able] not{Z}, willing but not[able]reply not made not{Z}, ambivalent but not[able]reply not made not{Z}, not[willing] & not[able]reply not made
Your question is what would this {Z} position\dimension be, yes?
Again, the {Z} position could be anything orthogonal to "willing" and "able", including the use of a coin toss.
Enjoy.
Dawn Bertot's reply Message 439:
quote:
RAZD writes
Your question is what would this {Z} position\dimension be, yes?
Again, the {Z} position could be anything orthogonal to "willing" and "able", including the use of a coin toss.
Enjoy.
To admin, would you allow RAZD the time to explain in simple terms what his meaning are here
My interest is to see if he is suggesting that there is actuall another word or area where there is something other than, Willing, Un willing, Able or Unable
Thanks for your consideration
Dawn Bertot
This thread is designed to address just this issue and no others.
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 & ablereply made not[willing] but ablereply 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).
So using the math comparison, we have a grid of (+x), (-x), (+y) and (-y) and four possible results:
• (+x,+y)
• (+x,-y)
• (-x,+y)
• (-x,-y)
And these could be a plotted as four points on a graph.
Dawn Bertot writes:
My interest is to see if he is suggesting that there is actuall another word or area where there is something other than, Willing, Un willing, Able or Unable
The question, as I see it, is:
Is there another word\concept that needs to be considered: whether there exists another (z) dimension to the graph.
My understanding is that Dawn Bertot says there are no other word\dimension that are not covered in some way by " Willing, Un willing, Able or Unable" -- but if there is, what is an example.
Dawn Bertot: If this does not represent your position, then please correct me.
After we agree that this is the basic position, then we can move on to what is meant by "able" and "willing" and their negatives to see what is covered and whether there are any categories that are not covered.
Enjoy.

There being no forum for logical questions, this would best be sent to Coffee House (I don't want another The Great Debate at this time, nor do I want to restrict participation of others, particularly anyone trying to help either Dawn Bertot or myself).
There should be no barbs or mud slings if all we are discussing is the logic, where it leads, and whether or not it is valid -- this should be like discussing a math problem.
I will ignore posts with insults and expect similar treatment.
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
Edited by RAZD, : word added for clarity

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)

 Replies to this message: Message 3 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 11:20 AM RAZD has replied Message 9 by Straggler, posted 09-06-2011 2:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied Message 12 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-06-2011 11:04 PM RAZD has replied Message 20 by Chuck77, posted 09-08-2011 5:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator

 Message 2 of 211 (632213) 09-06-2011 11:15 AM

Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum

Panda
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010

 (1)
 Message 3 of 211 (632215) 09-06-2011 11:20 AM Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD09-06-2011 10:56 AM

Just to clarify...
Are you (kinda) asking if it would be logical for someone to answer both the following questions with a 'No':
Are you willing to do it?
Are you unwilling to do it?
Are you asking if there is a third state of 'willing'?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 10:56 AM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 4 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 11:25 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 4 of 211 (632216) 09-06-2011 11:25 AM Reply to: Message 3 by Panda09-06-2011 11:20 AM

Re: Clarification
Hi Panda,
Are you (kinda) asking if it would be logical for someone to answer both the following questions with a 'No':
Are you willing to do it?
Are you unwilling to do it?
Are you asking if there is a third state of 'willing'?
That is another question I have for Dawn Bertot. As I see it the answer will depend on how 'willing' is defined and whether that leaves open ambivalence (neither willing nor unwilling, more not caring or apathetic).
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 3 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 11:20 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 (3)
 Message 5 of 211 (632217) 09-06-2011 11:25 AM

Ketterling's Law
But we must not forget the following:
Ketterling's Law: Logic Is An Organized Way Of Going Wrong With Confidence.

 Replies to this message: Message 6 by Phat, posted 09-06-2011 12:38 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003

 Message 6 of 211 (632221) 09-06-2011 12:38 PM Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote09-06-2011 11:25 AM

Re: Ketterling's Law
Logic Is An Organized Way Of Going Wrong With Confidence.
Lets see if I have this all straight, in real everyday terms!
OK, say that I believe, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is truth. Jar comes along and asks me..."Have you ever read the Bible?" I would, of course, be offended, and would say that I knew the jist of what the book meant. It was, of course, a little white lie, since I had never bothered with the approach of critically examining the book. Instead, I took information and edification from the book(s) to support my own world view. Wanting to win the argument of the moment, I pressed forward with that world view..ignoring all challenges to the contrary.
So in this sense, was I not willing to travel down the logical critical thinking path, though able to do so?
Was I not willing to set my preconceptions aside? (perhaps believing that at risk of blasphemy I was also unable to do so?

 This message is a reply to: Message 5 by Coyote, posted 09-06-2011 11:25 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 7 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 1:23 PM Phat has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 7 of 211 (632230) 09-06-2011 1:23 PM Reply to: Message 6 by Phat09-06-2011 12:38 PM

NOT THE TOPIC
Please stick to the topic
Ketterling's Law is NOT the topic
See Message 1 for the topic
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 6 by Phat, posted 09-06-2011 12:38 PM Phat has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 8 by Phat, posted 09-06-2011 1:33 PM RAZD has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003

 Message 8 of 211 (632231) 09-06-2011 1:33 PM Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD09-06-2011 1:23 PM

Re: NOT THE TOPIC
Im a wee bit confused.
RAZD writes:
There should be no barbs or mud slings if all we are discussing is the logic, where it leads, and whether or not it is valid -- this should be like discussing a math problem.
What is it that makes logic logical? How can logic itself be discussed without reference to something logical?

 This message is a reply to: Message 7 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 1:23 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 10 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 8:38 PM Phat has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

 (2)
 Message 9 of 211 (632241) 09-06-2011 2:38 PM Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD09-06-2011 10:56 AM

Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
What about willing and able but determined to argue for the sake of argument?
What about willing and able but thinks that reducing such things down to mathematical exercises isn't deserving of being taken seriously?
What about able and unwilling but will just agree publicly anyway and then carry on with previous belief regardless? Superficially willing if you will.
What about unable at the moment but might be able if was willing to put some more effort in? Where does that fit on your chart?
What about unable and unwilling but given different motivation would willingly try to find a way to make oneself able? Where does that fit on your chart?
Etc.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 10:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 10 of 211 (632288) 09-06-2011 8:38 PM Reply to: Message 8 by Phat09-06-2011 1:33 PM

Re: NOT THE TOPIC
Perhaps you and Straggles would like to start a logic topic thread of your own, so that I can have a discussion with Dawn Bertot.
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 8 by Phat, posted 09-06-2011 1:33 PM Phat has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 11 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-06-2011 10:42 PM RAZD has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 11 of 211 (632307) 09-06-2011 10:42 PM Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD09-06-2011 8:38 PM

Re: NOT THE TOPIC
Perhaps you and Straggles would like to start a logic topic thread of your own, so that I can have a discussion with Dawn Bertot.
Enjoy.
Im sure Im missing much of what you are implying in these exercises, so perhaps you could simplify
Is you implication that there is another word or category besides those I have suggested
is there something else that could be classified as a different area completely
please simlify and specify
I was not aware this thread had started
Where not[X] is the logical form for everything that is not [X] (used like (-x) in maths. So we have a grid of (+x), (-x), (+y) and (-y) and four possible results).
Does that sum up your position?
The question then comes down to what "willing" and "able" mean, whether there is a null (0) position, and whether there exists another dimension category.
If we define "able" to mean that they have in good working order whatever is necessary to send and receive and understand the communication, and "willing" to mean caring, motivated, or inclined (etc), then we need to consider if there is a "zero" position between +x and -x for these terms.
When it comes to "willing" it may be possible to be ambivalent (a null position), answering sometimes and other times not, as more of a whim than a willingness, perhaps based on the toss of a coin.
Once Joey on 'Fullhouse' was presented with a very complicated scenario , it started out as "Bill was on a train traveling at 120 mph, etc etc etc. After much diliberation and explaining the problem Joey said in response to the querest
"You say this guys name was Bill"?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 10 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 8:38 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 14 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2011 1:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011

 (1)
 Message 12 of 211 (632310) 09-06-2011 11:04 PM Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD09-06-2011 10:56 AM

Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Hello RAZD,
In the other thread where this issue came up I was argueing this from a different direction.
From what I could tell of DB's posts, he believed that being willing and able to perform an action would yield a positive result of that action.
The action or task given in her example was to respond.
I was argueing that being willing and adble to respond did not mean that the target of that response received the response or was able to understand the response.
I did not really get into the discussions of alternate options to willing and able.
I was argueing the alternate results of the performed action with the given that the responder was both willing and able. Willing and able were given in my examples. In DB's example, being willing and able to respond would mean that communication had been acheived. I was argueing how even if they were willing and able, there are times when communication will still fail.
I will add to your post though...
Interesting, so I am unable or unwilling, to learn, correct. Can you give me another category, that is neither of these two
I agree that ambivalent is a good third option. But it points to a result as well. You would still be willing and able, but not acting upon it. There are also things that can respond that 'willing' does not apply to.
A plant defense response does not require any willingness. It is usually a direct response to mechanical damage. The plant is not willing or unwilling. It is however able to respond.
I am not sure how you would add something that willing or unwilling do not apply to into your chart though.
I found it easier to discuss this with the actual example DB put forward originally.
If you did want to add this to the discussion, or if DB does, I can add in.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 10:56 AM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 13 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2011 12:54 PM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-07-2011 1:46 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 13 of 211 (632369) 09-07-2011 12:54 PM Reply to: Message 12 by Butterflytyrant09-06-2011 11:04 PM

Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Thanks Butterflytyrant,
The action or task given in her example was to respond.
IIRC, Dawn Bertot is male.
I was argueing that being willing and adble to respond did not mean that the target of that response received the response or was able to understand the response.
Thanks, I would like to establish a firm understanding of Dawn Bertot's position before further discussion.
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 12 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-06-2011 11:04 PM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 14 of 211 (632371) 09-07-2011 1:12 PM Reply to: Message 11 by Dawn Bertot09-06-2011 10:42 PM

Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Hi Dawn Bertot,
Im sure Im missing much of what you are implying in these exercises, so perhaps you could simplify
I am trying to recap your position first:
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 & ablereply made not[willing] but ablereply 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
Is you implication that there is another word or category besides those I have suggested
is there something else that could be classified as a different area completely
That is the next question. We can pursue that once you confirm that I do understand your basic position.
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 11 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-06-2011 10:42 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2011 11:35 PM RAZD has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 (1)
 Message 15 of 211 (632374) 09-07-2011 1:46 PM Reply to: Message 12 by Butterflytyrant09-06-2011 11:04 PM

Wasn't Spock right?
I was argueing that being willing and adble to respond did not mean that the target of that response received the response or was able to understand the response.
I would think that being "able" to respond would include being heard and understood by the receiver, no?
I mean, lets say that they just couldn't reach the 'Talk' button on their transponder, so instead chose to just shout their message. That's technically "responding", but since the receiver can't hear them, then the sender is "unable to respond".
It pretty much has to be that way for Spock to be making any sense, doesn't it?

 This message is a reply to: Message 12 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-06-2011 11:04 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 16 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2011 7:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied Message 17 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-07-2011 10:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024