Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
 2 online now: Newest Member: Jorge Parker Post Volume: Total: 918,211 Year: 5,468/9,624 Month: 493/323 Week: 133/204 Day: 3/4 Hour: 0/1

EvC Forum Board Administration Proposed New Topics

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

Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 1 of 2 (632207) 09-06-2011 10:56 AM

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:

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.

Next, if there is a "Z" position\dimension with it's obverse "not{Z}"

and

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, or something similar):

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.

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)

 Message 2 of 2 (632212) 09-06-2011 11:15 AM

Thread Copied to Coffee House Forum
Thread copied to the Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] | thread in the Coffee House forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Newer Topic | Older Topic Jump to:Board Administration     The Public Record     Announcements     Proposed New Topics     Suggestions and Questions Science Forums     The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy     Big Bang and Cosmology     Dates and Dating     Education and Creation/Evolution     Biological Evolution     Geology and the Great Flood     Human Origins and Evolution     Intelligent Design     Is It Science?     Creation/Evolution Miscellany     Origin of Life Social and Religious Issues     Bible Study     Comparative Religions     Social Issues and Creation/Evolution     Faith and Belief     Theological Creationism and ID Side Orders     Coffee House     The Great Debate     Free For All     Post of the Month     Links and Information     Creation/Evolution In The News     The Book Nook     Columnist     In Memoriam     Practice Makes Perfect Archives     Topic Proposals Archive     Showcase Retired Forums     Short Subjects (No new topics or messages)     Welcome visitors