Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,210 Year: 5,467/9,624 Month: 492/323 Week: 132/204 Day: 2/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
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 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 & 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 [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 & able
reply made

ambivalent & able
reply made sometimes\occasionally
not[willing] but able
reply 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 & able
reply made

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 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 Panda
09-06-2011 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 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 Phat
09-06-2011 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 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 Phat
09-06-2011 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 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 Butterflytyrant
09-06-2011 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 1518 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 Bertot
09-06-2011 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 & 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
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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 211 (632398)
09-07-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
09-07-2011 1:46 PM


Was "Spock" right?
Hi Catholic Scientist,
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".
To my mind, this comes down to how the terms are defined. Here you are suggesting that "able to respond" includes (1) being able to communicate rather than just being able to make a response of some kind that may or may not be detected, and (2) being able to reach the 'Talk' button etc so that the reply can be delivered. That's pretty broad for a definition.
quote:
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.
It pretty much has to be that way for Spock to be making any sense, doesn't it?
Well, isn't that one of the questions? Was (the TV character\script) Spock right? Are TV writers known for the validity of their logic?
We'll have to see what Dawn Bertot has to say about the word definitions once we establish that the op does accurately portray his 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 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-07-2011 1:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 8:57 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2011 9:54 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 211 (632540)
09-08-2011 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot
09-07-2011 11:35 PM


Stage 2: definitions
Hi again Dawn Bertot, thanks.
Yes true, this is my position. Actually only two but I understand your meaning concerning the opposites
Excellent, now we can move on to the next questions - definitions:
(1) -- What do you mean by "able" (to respond)?
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"?
(2) -- What do you mean by "willing" (to respond)?
Again, the dictionary definitions for "willing" are:
Willing Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
- adjective
1. disposed or consenting; inclined: willing to go along.
and
- adj
1. favourably disposed or inclined; ready
How do you define "willing"?
(3) -- And (per Message 17) - what do you mean by "respond"
Here, the dictionary definitions for "respond" are:
Respond Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
- verb
verb (used without object)
1. to reply or answer in words: to respond briefly to a question.
2. to make a return by some action as if in answer: to respond generously to a charity drive.
3. to react favorably.
4. Physiology. to exhibit some action or effect as if in answer; react: Nerves respond to a stimulus.
5. to correspond (usually followed by to ).
and
respond (rɪˈspɒnd) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
- vb (foll by to )
1. to state or utter (something) in reply
2. ( intr ) to act in reply; react: to respond by issuing an invitation
3. to react favourably: this patient will respond to treatment
How do you define "respond"?
I need these definitions to make sure that when we use these terms that we mean the same thing.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added "respond" definitions, formating
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
Edited by RAZD, : subagain
Edited by RAZD, : splng
Edited by RAZD, : ...

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 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2011 11:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:00 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 211 (632556)
09-08-2011 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2011 8:57 AM


Re: Stage 2: definitions
Hi again Dawn Bertot
I dont see why the definition is to broad.
It seems too broad to me because it includes some things that are not included in the dictionary definitions. (see Message 26)
Doesnt the definition have to include the situation and parties that are involved.
Why? Definitions are intended for general use and common understanding, so we don't need to redefine a word every time we use it in order to fit a particular situation. If that were necessary then we should use the situation specific definitions instead of the words.
If the goal is to reach or make contact with the other party, whether thier requesting it or that is you specific goal,
That could well be the goal of the Enterprise, however we don't know if communication is the goal of the receiving party. However, the immediate goal for the Enterprise was to get a response.
On the other hand, if my goal is to get to the lake no later than 9:00 am, and I arrive at 9:32, I was unable to accomplish my goal or task, correct. Here is a situation where only my purposes were involved and I failed
We are not talking about goals, but about response, willing and able.
You were able to get to the lake, you were willing to get to the lake. Your response was made. Spock left at 9:20 am and did not see it.
Even in your limited definitions, you are only still Able or unable to accomplish your task, you have not described another term or area
Even if you are willing and able and make no contact, your were still just willing and able. I see no other category even still
We haven't got to that question yet, what we are doing is exploring the definitions of the words.
Obviously, from the discussion so far, we can see that these definitions are important to establish so that we are talking about the same things.
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 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2011 8:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:19 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 211 (632662)
09-09-2011 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 12:00 AM


Stage 3: the questions of alternatives
Hi again Dawn Bertot, thanks.
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
Excellent, then everyone on this thread can always refer back to the definitions of "able", "willing", and "response" as given in Message 26.
Now we can move on to Stage 3: the question of alternatives. In Message 1 I said:
quote:
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.
This is really two questions:
  1. Is there a zero (null) position?
    1. that is not "able" and not "not[able]"?
    2. that is not "willing" and not "not[willing]"?
    3. that is not "respond" and not "not[respond]"?
    and
  2. Is there another "dimension" (word) to consider, an additional possibility to explain the lack of response being received and understood by the Enterprise?
Let's deal with the first question first:
I'll admit that I do not see much room for a zero (null) position for "able" and "respond" -- it either is or it isn't (the zero (null) position is effectively included in the isn't category), as these are fairly technical questions with no element of subjectiveness.
However I do see an opening in "willing" because it is subjective. As I said in Message 1:
quote:
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 & able
reply made

ambivalent & able
reply made sometimes\occasionally
not[willing] but able
reply 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

Another word that could be used in place of ambivalent is apathetic, but in either case we have a situation where they just don't care either way, and may decide on the whim of the moment or some external factor whether or not to respond.
In this case, we posit a group of people that, for reasons unknown, depend on the toss of a coin to make decisions when they don't care either way. "Head" you respond and "Tails" you don't: the coin toss came up "Tails" ... next time it could be "heads".
They are [able] to respond and they are [willing] to respond according to the coin toss. It is the coin toss that governs whether the response is made, rather than their [able]/[willing]ness.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : =

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 30 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:00 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 211 (632682)
09-09-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 12:19 AM


Re: Stage 2: definitions
Hello again Dawn Bertot.
In this instance the situations would not change the meanings of these terms. But the scenarios would of course only invlove one person doing a single thing, or the terms would involve a person attempting to have involvement with another person or persons.
So as you can see, I am not attempting to change meanings, but scenarios in life would naturally involve how and when those definitions would apply. Woudnt you agree?
The purpose of the definitions is that they do not explicitly or implicitly involve personal connotations, and we agree on those definitions to prevent misunderstanding or equivocation (changing definitions within the argument).
For instance, a sunflower responds to sunlight by turning towards the sun: it is [able] to respond, but it is difficult to see whether or not [willing]ness is involved, as it is more of a programed response, sun out = turn to sun, sun not out = don't turn to sun, and not a subjective decision.
Ill ask you the same question I asked BT. Wouldnt, goals, response and communication, be what make Willing and Able possible? IOWs, these would be mechanisms or qualifications that are sub-points, to the greater poins of willing and able, they are not something different, but a intrical part to the accomplishment of those limited realities
Not necessarily, this is why we define the terms, so that we can refer to them and then test the situation to see if it meets the requirements for [able], [willing] and [response]. Neither [able], [willing] nor [respond] list goals in their definitions. Neither [able], [willing] nor [respond] list communication in their definitions.
It may be that communication is the goal of the Enterprise, as would be implied by the situation, but we cannot determine what the goals of the target are, just whether they respond or not, and we can only speculate on the reasons why a response is not detected.
Obviously, from the discussion so far, we can see that these definitions are important to establish so that we are talking about the same things.
Agreed
So then all we need to do is see if the situations being considered meet the definitions of [able], [willing] and [respond], as listed on Message 26
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 31 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 211 (632684)
09-09-2011 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 12:39 AM


Stage 3: the question of alternatives
Hi again Dawn Bertot
If "no response was recieved" then they were unable to answer the hail, because they made no contact with the enterprise, knowing a response was required
But the definition of [respond] does not include whether or not the response is received, just what constitutes a response.
A sunflower responds to sunlight by turning towards the sun, and the sun does need to know or receive this information for this to be a response.
Ill try this again, pay close attention. If we look at it from the second ships point of view, they were Willing and Able, the is no other category. IOWs no other word, correct?
Indeed, let's consider the scenario where the second ship did respond from their viewpoint: they were [willing], they were [able], they did [respond] and now await a response from the Enterprise: if the Enterprise does not respond to their message, does that mean that the Enterprise is not[willing] or not[able] to respond? Or is something else involved?
If we look at it from Spocks position the only terms that will apply are willing and able, Unable or unwilling, no other area to consider, nor any other options
Are you starting to see the point, it doesnt matter the position or perspective only willing or able will apply. If you think I am wrong provide me a scenario where there will be another concept besides these terms
That is the question we are now exploring: are there other options? Claiming there are no other options does not make it so, this needs to be demonstrated. That is why we are now exploring these other alternatives.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : sunflower

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 32 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:39 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 6:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 211 (632685)
09-09-2011 12:30 PM


Use of Like and Dislike on this thread Notice
As the initiator of this thread, I am using the "like" and "dislike" buttons to denote whether I feel the posts relate to the topic in a respectful manner.
Thank you for your participation in moving the discussion forward.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : splng

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)

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 211 (632687)
09-09-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Panda
09-09-2011 8:52 AM


Stage 2: definitions
Hi Panda,
Although RADZ provided a definition of 'able', 'willing' and 'respond' in Message 26 , Dawn only acknowledged the definition of 'able' (and implied an acceptance of the definition of 'willing'.)
The response was a little ambiguous, but I took it to include all the word defintions:
Message 30: 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
Message 31:
Obviously, from the discussion so far, we can see that these definitions are important to establish so that we are talking about the same things.
Agreed
And that this confirms it.
Enjoy.
ps -- it's RAZD.
Edited by RAZD, : ps

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 38 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 8:52 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 52 of 211 (632875)
09-10-2011 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Stage 3: the questions of alternatives, 1st the zero point issue
Hi Dawn Bertot
Your problem here is a simple one and it comes down to subjectivity. Apathy is not an action. The question is were they willing and able to toss the coin. The answer is yes.
Ambivalence is not an action either, but that doesn't mean anything, because [willing] and [able] are not actions either: the action is the response, not the elements that control whether the response is made. they are not verbs.
... The question is were they willing and able to toss the coin. The answer is yes.
Let's say it isn't a matter of being willing or unwilling, that it's part of their programing, like the response of a sunflower to the presence or absence of sunlight: when confronted with a situation that their a priori programing does not provide an answer for, they toss a coin. Then they add that result to their programing for future use (if the choice results in death then selection favors those that got the other coin toss and survived - with that result added to their programing).
it does not matter the subjective actions the coin might produce, ...
Actions are not subjective.
... because they cannot make a subjective decision if they dont toss the coin.
And they don't make a subjective decision if they DO toss the coin -- the coin determines the answer.
... the question is were they willing and able to toss the coin
But they aren't willing and they aren't unwilling, it's like they are programed to toss the coin and then abide by the results. They will always toss the coin in such situations, and let the coin determine their actions.
Actions and reality will only make the words valid. Doing nothing in no situation for no reason, does not promote willing and able
At bare minimum, apathy cannot be offered as an alternate term to describe something differnt than willing or able. The closest it comes is to unwilling, but nothing more or less than unwilling. Wouldnt you agree
No, I wouldn't. Apathy and ambivalence do not mean willing or unwilling.
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.


willing
not[willing]
ambivalent
willing and ambivalent
not[willing] and ambivalent
not[ambivalent]
willing and not[ambivalent]
not[willing] & not[ambivalent]
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


willing
not[willing]
apathetic
willing and apathetic
not[willing] and apathetic
not[apathetic]
willing and not[apathetic]
not[willing] & not[apathetic]
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.
This is why I originally showed the following grid in Message 1 and repeated it in Message 39
quote:
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 & able
reply made

ambivalent & able
reply made sometimes\occasionally
not[willing] but able
reply 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

When the second ship is ambivalent\apathetic yet able to respond, the question of whether or not a response is made will depend on some other factor, a factor that may be entirely arbitrary, like the toss of a coin.
Now you can argue that zero is a member of the not[positive] numbers, but this would be ignoring that it is also a member of the not[negative] numbers, and that replacing negative numbers with zero in many equations will give rather bizarre results compared to the results for using negative numbers.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : action

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 47 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 10:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024