Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 28 of 211 (632580)
09-08-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Butterflytyrant
09-08-2011 9:23 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Hello Butterflytyrant,
Butterflytyrant writes:
willing & able - reply made - reply not received.
this is an example where the second craft is both willing and able to respond, but no response is received.
A third option that Spock did not recognize.
I believe that in your example the term unable still applies. Especially if we use the definitions that RAZD provides in message 26.
RAZD writes:
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>
In each of the definitions it includes the adjective of necessary or needed. In your example where a reply is made by the other ship but undetected by the Enterprise, it is not of a form or medium that is necessitated by the Enterprise. So the classification of unable would still apply. They are able to make a reply, but unable to make it in the necessary form that the Enterprise can recognize. So they are still either unwilling or unable. Your thoughts?
Edited by rueh, : Add emphasis

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-08-2011 9:23 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-08-2011 10:52 PM rueh has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(3)
Message 79 of 211 (633121)
09-12-2011 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Butterflytyrant
09-12-2011 10:57 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
butterflytyrant writes:
Spocks logical possibility one - "they are unable to respond".
Spocks logical possibility two - "they are unwilling to respond"
My logical possibility three - The second craft has responded, but the Enterprise has not detected this response.
My logical possibility three - The second craft is not aware that was hailed in the first place so they send no response. The second ships communication equiptment is fully cabable of responding to the Enterprise. The crew love Spock and would talk to him any chance they got so they are willing.
In my logical possibility three, the second craft is both willing and able to respond. It has completed the task of responding. Proving that it was willing and able. Thus refuting Spock (and your) claim that the only options are unwilling or unable to respond.
In my logical possibility four, the second craft is both willing and able to respond. Thus refuting Spock (and your) claim that the only options are unwilling and unable to respond.
It cant get any simpler than that.
When I first thought about this I believed that the second ships responses would only fall under two catergories (unable, unwilling). After reviewing your posts and further thought, I see how the mistake in Spocks logic is the use of the verb respond. If he had instead choosen communicate, than he would have been correct. However in choosing respond it allows for additional possibilities that unable or unwilling do not cover.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-12-2011 10:57 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:25 AM rueh has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(2)
Message 91 of 211 (633315)
09-13-2011 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Butterflytyrant
09-13-2011 8:25 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Well it could be a bit complicated. Seeing as how a point could be made that a line of communication is what is implied in Spock's usage of response. In which case if it is communication that is being implied, then being unable to respond is correct from Spock's perspective. Regardless of the reasons why that response was not received. Though he was technically incorrect in the choice of verbiage. Truthfully though, I hate discussions about semantics and 'am going to go back to lurker mode so that I can read through RAZD's charts that he loves so much

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:25 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 94 of 211 (633320)
09-13-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
09-13-2011 2:43 PM


Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
Hello RAZD,
RAZD writes:
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.
If ambivalent means a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite or conflicting things. Then couldn't you be ambivalent and be willing and not willing at the same time? These are two opposite or conflicting things. In which case wouldn't the ultimate state of either being willing or not willing just rest on what the final decision to your ambivalence is? Or if no decision is reached wouldn't that have the same outcome as not willing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 2:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 3:21 PM rueh has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 121 of 211 (633467)
09-14-2011 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
09-13-2011 3:21 PM


Re: ambivalence is not unwilling ... it is neither willing nor unwilling
RAZD writes:
Think of it as the zero position between positive willing and negative willing -- it is neither positive nor negative.
Ok it is a zero position. I think that only remains true if two things apply. One, that your ambivalence remains so pervasive as to never make a choice. If your decision is based on a coin toss than you are still making a choice based on those results. Either willing or not willing. Two, that the result of no action does not have the same consequences or appearance as not willing to act. If you are so conflicted as to not respond (since a conflict between willing and unwilling leads to a non response) than in my book that is the same as not willing to respond.
RAZD writes:
They may ask "is a response necessary? or will the Enterprise crew investigate further in any event? Would a lack of response affect the behavior of the Enterprise in any negative way?"
I don't see this as being the same state of being as either willing or able. These are reasons why you are either willing or not willing.
Edited by rueh, : spell check
Edited by rueh, : clarify a point

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 3:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 10:41 PM rueh has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 130 of 211 (633633)
09-15-2011 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by RAZD
09-14-2011 10:41 PM


Re: chance and necessity
Good morning RAZD,
RAZD writes:
You are confusing willing to follow the coin toss with willing to respond: willing to follow the coin toss does not mean that you respond. If you flip tails and don't respond you are willing to follow the coin toss but not willing to respond. If you flip heads and respond you are willing to follow the coin toss and willing to respond.
No I don't believe I am confusing the two. What I am saying is that you are still making a choice to either be willing or unwilling regardless of how that choice is determined. It could be by weighing the information and determining the consequences of your action or by diving tea leaves. Ultimately you are still making a choice of willing or unwilling.
RAZD writes:
If I am willing to respond to your post, and able to respond to your post, but don't perceive it as necessary, then I may delay that response for a day while I complete some other tasks that I view as more important (necessary) to my long term survival, ... however that delay does not mean that I am either UNable or UNwilling to reply.
I believe it does make you unwilling, at least temporarily. You are weighing the information and determining that a response is not needed as this point so you are unwilling to respond, at this point in time. Or the situation could need your immediate attention in which case you are unable to respond at this point. In the future your unwillingness or inability to respond could turn to willingness or ability, at which time you then respond. I don't think that just because you are delaying the choice, negates your willingness or ability it just delays it. You could say that I meant to respond but I didn't because of whatever factors but when it comes down to it you are still more willing to accomplish the other tasks before you are willing to respond.
If we consider your diagram than I believe that the outcomes can be summed up as follows.
A= Willing to decide based on empirical evidence
B= Willing to decide based on inadequate evidence
C= Unwilling to decide at this point
D= Willing to make a decision based on opinion anyway.
Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 10:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 8:27 AM rueh has replied
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 11:57 AM rueh has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 132 of 211 (633636)
09-15-2011 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Panda
09-15-2011 8:27 AM


Re: chance and necessity
Hello Panda,
Panda writes:
Maybe the 3rd option from 'Willing' and 'Unwilling' is 'Mindless Compulsion'?
Ah mindless compulsions, I get those all the time . Well that would eliminate willingness but not ability. So the logic that a given action comes down to either ability or willingness is still sound.
Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 8:27 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 8:54 AM rueh has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 137 of 211 (633666)
09-15-2011 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Panda
09-15-2011 8:54 AM


Re: chance and necessity
Well if we take compulsion to mean an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act, then willingness is a non factor. However the antonym of compulsion is free-will. So you can’t have a non compulsion with out being free to choose between willing and unwilling. So if Spock were to say that "there is only three reasons why they did not respond. They are either unable, unwilling or do not suffer from a compulsion" doesn't make any sense. They may have a compulsion to not respond but that makes them unable. Since it would be an inability to perform an act.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 8:54 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 12:34 PM rueh has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 144 of 211 (633695)
09-15-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by RAZD
09-15-2011 11:57 AM


Re: chance and necessity
Hello RAZD
So you agree that being too conflicted - unwilling - to decide is not the same as willing to respond?
Do you also agree that being too conflicted - unwilling - to decide is not the same as unwilling to respond?
It depends on what the required action is. If I am required to respond and my ambivalence prevents that from occurring than I am unable to respond. ( I realize that I was using unwilling before and I may have needed to use unable). Ambivalence is a reason why there is no response but the ultimate outcome is that it makes me unable to respond. The same is true with the deer he is able to run until he is compelled to not run. At which time he is unable to run. When the compulsion is alleviated than he is able to run again. I am not sure if that is affirming the consequence or not. Maybe you could help me see the error. If affirming the consequent is-
1.If P, then Q.
2.Q.
3.Therefore, P.
P=compulsion, ambivalence, etc.
Q=unable
I don't think that my argument is-
1. If Compelled then Unable
2. Unable
3. Therefore compelled
The way I am trying to express my argument is
1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q.
Or
1. If compelled, ambivalent, etc. then unable
2. compelled, ambivalent, etc.
3. therefore unable
Ambivalence, compulsion, what have you, could be the reason but the ultimate outcome is inability.
RAZD writes:
I don't like to ride my bike in the rain, that does not mean that I am not able to ride my bike in the rain, or that I would not ride my bike in the rain if it were a high priority task (emergency), or that I will not ride my bike as soon as the rain stops.
In the next month I plan to ride my bike. Prediction: by the end of the month I will have ridden my bike, even if there are days filled with rain (which is also predicted).
The conditions affect when, not whether, I will ride my bike.
My ability to ride my bike is unaffected.
Your ability to ride may be unaffected but your willingness is. If it is raining you are unwilling to ride your bike. You could ride, you enjoy riding except in the rain so you choose not to ride. Therefore you are unwilling to ride. There could be stipulations that effect your willingness such as priorities, at which time your unwillingness changes to willingness (but grumpy )
1.If rain, then unwilling to ride
2. Rain
3. Therefore unwilling
or if we have other factors that affect your willingness then it would be
1. If P, then Q, unless X
2. P and X
3. Therefore not Q
1. If rain, then unwilling, unless late (for example)
2. Rain and late
3. Therefore not unwilling
I agree that there can be reasons or possibilities for an action or inaction however I still think that all your examples can be expressed as either able, not able, willing, not willing.
As a side note. Your table in the message I was responding to had an error. Message 136 You have unwilling to decide in both a row and a column.
Edited by rueh, : No reason given.
Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 11:57 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-15-2011 5:15 PM rueh has not replied
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 6:11 PM rueh has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 150 of 211 (633767)
09-16-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
09-15-2011 6:11 PM


Re: ok who did a rain dance on my parade?
Good morning RAZD,
RAZD writes:
Good, you looked it up (or knew it). Not many people would.
I knew the basic concept of the fallacy but not the mathematical expression of it.
RAZD writes:
The way I see it is this:
Premise 1: if I am unable to respond, then no response will be made
Premise 2: No response is made
Conclusion 1: Therefore I am unable to respond
and (this is the next step, and I could talk here about cognitive dissonance, where you have dissonance between able and failed response, forcing you to this next conclusion)
Conclusion 2: Therefore whatever made the response fail made me unable to respond
Whenever someone says "but that made you unable" this is what I see happening. This can be followed by ...
Conclusion 3:"or it made you unwilling"
... which to me is tacit admission that it is NOT unable and NOT unwilling, but the dissonance between that and the belief that one or the other must be responsible.
That is not the way I am presenting my argument. At least it is not the way I am trying to present it. [abe]I believe that you have my premise 1 reversed. I am saying that
  • If there is no response made, then you are unable to respond
  • no response made
  • therefore you are unable to respond
I am not saying that something else couldn't have caused the none response, but that it can be expressed as unable or unwilling.[/abe]
RAZD writes:
This is begging the question -- here you've defined "compelled, ambivalent," to be unable, not concluded that being "compelled, ambivalent," makes you unable: your conclusion is built into the definition of "compelled, ambivalent," and you don't allow consideration that you can be "compelled, ambivalent," AND able
True I am using a very broad definition of the word able. I am saying that ambivalence, compulsion is the reason why a response is not made but it can be expressed as unable for all intensive purposes. If we narrowly define able to mean a skill, or a resource, then yes you can be able, willing and still not respond. However if we use the broader definition of able then it is correct. You yourself agreed to a broad definition when we were defining terms. In case you do not recall in Message 26 We agreed that able was defined as -
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>
Notice the bolded section of etcetera in the definition.
Meaning : a number of unspecified additional persons or things.
So by that definition anything that allows you to do something or accomplish a task would make you able, by definition. Or conversely anything that prevents you from doing the same would unable you. It may be begging the question but by the standards of our definition it is grammatically correct. Just so I am clear. I do agree that there are any numerous reasons that a task can be not accomplished. All of these could have been expressed by Spock in his explanation. However for the point of brevity he is correct as being able to express these reasons as either unable or unwilling.
RAZD writes:
Amusingly I was just out for a quick ride into town, and I was caught by a downburst of rain. It poured and many people were caught. People looked at me funnily as I was laughing loudly at the situation: there I was, riding in the rain, willing or not. I am home and dried off now.
If I was truly unwilling to ride in the rain, then I would have jumped off the bike, but instead I kept riding to my destination (and waited there until the rain stopped before coming home).
Funny how life works like that isn't it? My girlfriend has the habit of talking about something and then that situation occurring all the time. That's why I try and encourage her to always talk about positive things I believe that in your circumstance is where the additional X factors apply.
  1. If P, then Q, unless X
  2. P and X
  3. Therefore not Q
  • P= Rain
  • Q= unwilling
  • X= already riding
Here the X factor was that you were already riding your bike
and I agree that in these circumstances you were both willing and able. However my argument is not that you would be either unable or unwilling. It is that any given action can be expressed as either willing, able, unwilling, unable and your story highlights this. You were still able and still willing to ride the bike. If either of these conditions had changed. Either you were unable or unwilling to ride the bike, then you would not have done so.
I thought about this last night before I went to bed and came up with what I believe is a true circumstance where unable or unwilling cannot express the incompletion of a given task, without relying on the definition of either able or willing. It has to do with how we define the purpose of the given task. If we broadly define it then you can be able and willing but the task can be unaccomplished. However, if we specify the definition of it, than you can not be able or willing and the task remain unaccomplished. I believe it relates to our Spock example that inspired this conversation and may allow for Spock to use the word respond instead of communicate and still be correct.
For example:
  • Our given task is for me to talk to you.
  • I speak English and not French.
  • You speak French and do not understand English.
If we define talk as to have words come out of my mouth. A broad definition. Then I am able, willing and the task is accomplished. However if we define the task of talking to you as words come out of my mouth, are heard by you and are understood by you. A specified definition. Then I am now willing but unable to talk even though there are words coming out of my mouth. Since in this case the specified action is for my words to come out of my mouth, be heard by you and be understood by you. Given these circumstances I am unable to accomplish the latter part of the task.
So in our Spock example, if we define respond as, a transmission sent for the purpose of being received and understood by a second party, in this case the Enterprise. This gives us three things about a response that has to be fulfilled in order to be successful.
  • Response sent
  • Response received
  • Response understood
Then the ship is unable to respond since they are unable to accomplish the purpose of the task. The may be able to send the response but since the second and third part of the task is unfulfilled then they are unable to complete the task in its entirety.
Edited by rueh, : No reason given.
Edited by rueh, : Clear up some formating
Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 6:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 12:08 PM rueh has seen this message but not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(2)
Message 155 of 211 (634001)
09-18-2011 2:23 AM


message 150 is dumb
I would like to retract my reasonings for being able to use unable in the circumstances I mentioned in message 150. After further thought I realize that it does not work for deductive reasoning purposes. If we use such a broad definition of able, or in this case unable there are some problems that occur. One it has the consequence of unwillingness being a cause for inability. Which means Spock could have said that there is only one reason for no response, they are unable to respond. which is just silly. Two if we use such a bland definition it makes unable, unable to explain anything. If any and everything can be explained by inability then it is really explaining nothing at all. It may be grammatically correct to phrase inability in this manner but for the purposes of deduction it fails to hold water.It reminds me of explanations I have read from other posters as to why god did it is not really an explanation at all. It may be the truth but if it is used to explain everything then it explains nothing at all. Lastly it assumes the premise without actually providing any proof as to why this is the case. I believe this is what RAZD was explaining to me about begging the question. I have yet to find any other reasons to prove that Spocks logic is sound but rest assured I will still gaze at my navel in search of an answer. Until then thank you for the discussion.
Edited by rueh, : I don't believe I will ever be able to write a sentence and get then and than right the first time.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2011 7:54 PM rueh has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 159 of 211 (634055)
09-18-2011 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Dawn Bertot
09-18-2011 8:51 AM


Hello Dawn Bertot,
Dawn Bertot writes:
In truth able and willingness are principles of reality written into that fabric. Rsepone, action, compulsion, whatever, decide which of these existing principles will surface or be actualized
This is the same argument that I was making however it falls victim to the same pitfalls I described in Message 155 If all principles describe what reality is actualized, then willingness can describe if you are able or unable. In which case the possibilities do not fall into the two categories of either unwilling or unable. They fall solely under either able or unable. Maybe it's like Yoda said "there is no try, there is only do or do not" There is no willing to respond you are either able or unable to respond. Grammaticaly it may be correct but it explains no reason as to why you are unable.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2011 8:51 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2011 8:00 PM rueh has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 168 of 211 (634143)
09-19-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Dawn Bertot
09-18-2011 8:00 PM


Hello Dawn Bertot,
Dawn Bertot writes:
Sure it does. relity or physical properties have limitation itself, that is why things are the way they ar and why we can desribe them as Able and unable
I think that you missed my point. I am not saying that describing whether we are able or not able to accomplish a task is not true. Obviously I agree with the statement that in the general sense we are either able or unable (or any other synonym of able) to accomplish a task. What I am saying is that able or unable does not describe the reason why a task is not accomplished. It could be for any numerous reasons unwillingness, ambivalence, apathy, etc. These are the underlying causes of our inability. The reasons why a task remains unaccomplished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2011 8:00 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3774 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(2)
Message 181 of 211 (634388)
09-21-2011 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
09-21-2011 12:51 AM


Re: The sunflower test - again
Hello RAZD,
Just a quick question I would like for to clear up if possible as I read through your discussion.
RAZD writes:
"having necessary power, skill, resources, or qualifications; qualified; having the necessary power, resources, skill, time, opportunity; possessed of needed powers or of needed resources to accomplish an objective."
In this case with the sunflower, wouldn't the needed resource be the external stimuli of the sun or lamp? If that is absent then the sunflower does not respond. So it should be correct to say that it is unable do to it lacking the necessary resource of the external stimuli?

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2011 12:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2011 5:03 PM rueh has seen this message but 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