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

From Message 437 on the Subjective Evidence of Gods thread:Hi Dawn Bertot, been awhile. 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. 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. 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, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : word added for clarity

Thread copied here from the Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] | thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

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

Hi Panda, 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

But we must not forget the following:

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?

Please stick to the topicKetterling's Law is NOT the topicSee Message 1 for the topicEnjoy.

Im a wee bit confused. What is it that makes logic logical? How can logic itself be discussed without reference to something logical?

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.

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.

Enjoy.Im sure Im missing much of what you are implying in these exercises, so perhaps you could simplifyIs you implication that there is another word or category besides those I have suggestedis there something else that could be classified as a different area completelyplease simlify and specifyI was not aware this thread had started 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 BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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... 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.

Thanks Butterflytyrant, IIRC, Dawn Bertot is male. Thanks, I would like to establish a firm understanding of Dawn Bertot's position before further discussion.Enjoy.

Hi Dawn Bertot, I am trying to recap your position first: 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

That is the next question. We can pursue that once you confirm that I do understand your basic position.Enjoy

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?