Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 151 of 211 (633989)
09-17-2011 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
09-14-2011 9:05 PM


Re: The sunflower test
How does the presence or absence of light from the sunlamp affect the movement of the sunflower to face the location of the sunlamp?
... it's not unable, ... it's not unwilling, ... it must be something else.
Im not sure what you are going for in your Something Else, unless you can provide another word besides Able, to do what it needs to do with or without sunlight
Are you suggesting a word other than able or unable THAT would desribe its actions?
Im not being Evasive, I simply dont see what it is that you think the sunflower can or cannot do, with or without sunlight, or how that applies
Since you have implied it can do something without a lamp hitting it or direct sunlight, I would suggest it is ABLE to function, with stored energy or low levels of light
Is that what you are getting at, or am I still missing the point?
it must be something else.
Since you seem to be hinting at something besides able or unable, just tell me what that something is
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 9:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 12:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


(1)
Message 152 of 211 (633992)
09-17-2011 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by RAZD
09-14-2011 9:44 PM


Re: The flow chart
Response is inextricably part of the issue, failure to include it makes this meaningless --- here's why:
I didnt say it wasnt part of the process, I said it wont affect the outcome of the two choices
By unlinking the adjectives from the verb you make them tautological:
You can always find something where the crew is able
You can always find something where the crew is willing
You can always find something where the crew is UNable
You can always find something where the crew is UNwilling
So you can cherry pick which "somethings" you want to get whatever result you want.
That's dishonest.
Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonest
I think you are confusing intellectual choices with simply reality. A tree is no longer able to stand upright and falls over when conditions of decay are sufficient enough to cause it to fall down. Then it is no longer able to complete THAT PART of its function, standing upright
As we can easily see from this flow chart there are several other possibilities that were not considered.
QED
I admitted along time ago there were many other possibilites under the category of response, but it appears they wont change the outcome of either category, if the goal or task cannot be completed
In this instance the action is [response] and the various test boxes determine whether or not the action is completed. One of these test boxes involves [able]ness. One of these boxes involves [willing]ness. The other 5 do not. The first 6 test boxes determine whether the action is completed or not, while the last one determines whether or not it is known that the action was completed or not in the time alloted.
Where or what on your chart am I missing something
That there are other factors that can affect whether or not the action is completed, not just [able]ness and [willing]ness
Great, so what word would you use to distinguish these other factors, that dont fall under or desribe willing or able?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2011 9:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 7:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


(1)
Message 153 of 211 (633994)
09-17-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by New Cat's Eye
09-15-2011 12:37 PM


No, they're not the only possibilities for everything...
RAZD has done a good job showing how there are other possibilties for some things.
Which examples, specifically, are you disagreeing with?
No, there are no other possibilites than the only two, for the existence of things
There are other possibilites for many other things and there are more types of responses.
But no example of either possibilites or responses will fall outside of willing or able
I have no problem with his examples because they deal strickly with response and actions, not directly with able or willing
If you think i am wrong present any example he has provided and i will show it has only to do with ability, capaABILITY, InABILITY, WILLINGNESS OR UNWILLINGNESS
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-15-2011 12:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2011 2:05 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 154 of 211 (634000)
09-18-2011 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dawn Bertot
09-17-2011 9:31 PM


No, there are no other possibilites than the only two, for the existence of things
There are other possibilites for many other things and there are more types of responses.
But no example of either possibilites or responses will fall outside of willing or able
So what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-17-2011 9:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2011 8:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3737 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

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


(1)
Message 156 of 211 (634018)
09-18-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by New Cat's Eye
09-18-2011 2:05 AM


Bertot writes;
No, there are no other possibilites than the only two, for the existence of things
There are other possibilites for many other things and there are more types of responses.
But no example of either possibilites or responses will fall outside of willing or able
CS writes:
So what?
Here is why CS. For all RAZDs attempts he has yet to provide a term that means something different than simply unable. Consider no 8 below.
It does not matter how or where the unable is unable. Lets say that a person has a so-called compulsive inaction, as desribed by RAZD. Even if the influence is involuntary, it still renders the person UNABLE at that moment to accomplish a desired goal, even if the goal is an involuntary response and even if the involuntary response is not considered. It doesnt matter what happens to the person inside, it doesnt matter if he still has the ability in theory
Inability or unableness doesnt have to do with just the person or the persons reactions, it is a characteristic of the physical world or reality, already in place
He WONT ever provide a term that doesnt mean Unwilling or Unable not because, he is unwilling, but because he is unable, reality wont allow him to do that, therefore he is unable to provide it
RAZD writes:
In case (1) the action is taken.
In case (2) the action is blocked by unwilling
In case (3) the action is taken.
In case (4) the action is blocked by compulsive inaction in spite of being able
In case (5) the action is blocked by unable
In case (6) the action is blocked by unwilling and unable
In case (7) the action is compulsively attempted but it is blocked by being unable
In case (8) the action is blocked by unable and compulsive inaction
You could also use programed action and programed inaction or ruled action and ruled inaction (overruled action?) with similar meaning
Case (4) - not unable, not unwilling, action not taken due to compulsive\programed\ruled inaction
Example: a soldier goes to his superior officer and volunteers for an action he proposes
He is able (or he wouldn't volunteer to do the task)
He is willing (or he wouldn't volunteer to do the task)
The task is not done if the superior officer overrules him and refuses to let him take the action.
This wont work either
Again he (the soldier) is unable, even if has the ABILITY, or he is ABLE himself. Because inability or unable doesnt have just to do with the person or his wishes, or his compulsions, voluntary or involuntary, it has to do with reality itself and the circumstances that surround it
The soldier is unable, no matter his wishes or abilites, but this does not desribe something different than unable, becuase Unable is a principle of reality no the person
This is where RAZD is making his mistake
He (RAZD) will never provide you with a term that does not or will not fall under these two categories, because there is no term that can be used in any scenario, that cannot be described as willing or able.
his second mistake is letting contrived definitions define reality. Actually, just the opposite is the case, reality defines terms, not the other way around. Ableness or unableness is defined and applied by reality, not a dictionary definition
reality and its physical attributes makes me able or unable to do anything. Reality allows any possibility in the physical world to be possible, impossible, able or unable. You cant overirde reality and the physical laws with human definitions of these terms
RAZD is trying to make able or unable apply to a persons abilites or wishes exclusely to get a desired definition. But able and unable extend outside the person and thier wishes or thier programmed or unprogrammed compulsions
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
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2011 2:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2011 11:36 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 159 by rueh, posted 09-18-2011 5:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 157 of 211 (634029)
09-18-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Dawn Bertot
09-18-2011 8:51 AM


there is no term that can be used in any scenario, that cannot be described as willing or able.
Sure there can: Ambivalent and/or apathetic.
We can use those terms in certain scenarios where their descriptions are not unwilling or unable.
But then, you could just re-describe the words so that they do fit. Still though, we can use the words in our way to make the scenario.

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 158 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2011 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


(1)
Message 158 of 211 (634051)
09-18-2011 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by New Cat's Eye
09-18-2011 11:36 AM


Sure there can: Ambivalent and/or apathetic.
We can use those terms in certain scenarios where their descriptions are not unwilling or unable.
But then, you could just re-describe the words so that they do fit. Still though, we can use the words in our way to make the scenario.
As I pointed out earlier apathy and ambivlence do not happen is a mila-second and they cannot be seperated from will itself. RAZD would need to demonstrate how one could have apathy without will in the first place, for apathy to be not willing.
There is no need to resescribe another term to make it fit willing or able, because there is no other term for either of them, IMV
My vikings lost again and scored no points in the second half.
Better get rid of McDone (Mcnabb) before its to late
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2011 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2011 10:03 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 8:36 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3737 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

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


Message 160 of 211 (634066)
09-18-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by rueh
09-18-2011 2:23 AM


Re: message 150 is dumb
Thanks rueh,
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.
That's where I was going to go in my reply to Message 150, glad you caught it.
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. 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.
This is the problem that Dawn Bertot has, when you force the conclusion to meet your preconceptions, it is pseudologic (like pseudoscience).
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.
Thank you
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 155 by rueh, posted 09-18-2011 2:23 AM rueh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2011 8:05 PM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 161 of 211 (634067)
09-18-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by rueh
09-18-2011 5:58 PM


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"
this is absolutely true as well. Limiting it however does not change that willingness still applies. Nor does it change the fact that there is no other word, concept or idea different than Able or unable
Grammaticaly it may be correct but it explains no reason as to why you are unable.
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
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by rueh, posted 09-18-2011 5:58 PM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by rueh, posted 09-19-2011 4:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 162 of 211 (634068)
09-18-2011 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by RAZD
09-18-2011 7:54 PM


Re: message 150 is dumb
This is the problem that Dawn Bertot has, when you force the conclusion to meet your preconceptions, it is pseudologic (like pseudoscience).
fortunately reality is not a perconception, it defines Able and willing,not the other way around and that is the problem you are having
Reuh writes:
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.
Until RAZD can provide another term that does not fall under willing and able he has failed. He would have presented that word a long time ago, had he been able. i have shown that none of his attempts at terms thus far will work
Notice how he made no attempt to respond to my argument that he needs to demonstrate how apathy doesnt involve will. he wont do this because he knows there is no way to seperate the two
Hence any terms thus presented by him have failed
Do you notice that he wont just say, "This is the term that is different than willing or able, ______"
RAZD, simply provide a term that I have not already demonstrated that will not work. Or present the term again you have already presented and the reasons it is different in simple english and one liners, without disortations and lectures. Then perhaps we can discuss it open and honestly
here it is again. The alternate or different word to describe any action in the physical world besides willining and able, unwilling and unable is______________. Fill in the blank
Dawn Bertot
Thank you
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2011 7:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 9:24 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 163 of 211 (634108)
09-19-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dawn Bertot
09-18-2011 4:59 PM


As I pointed out earlier apathy and ambivlence do not happen is a mila-second and they cannot be seperated from will itself.
Sure they can, I'm willing to do it but I just don't care whether it gets done or not... so it may or may not get done depending on the circumstances and yet I'm willing.
RAZD would need to demonstrate how one could have apathy without will in the first place, for apathy to be not willing.
No, not necessarily. Unless you're tring to broaden the verb "to will" into a catch-all term. But then, you're just creating a tautology so you're really not saying much of anything at all. So whoopty-frickin'-doo.
There is no need to resescribe another term to make it fit willing or able, because there is no other term for either of them, IMV
Huh? Are you seriously claiming there are no synonyms for those words? There's a thesaurus online....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2011 4:59 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 164 of 211 (634119)
09-19-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by New Cat's Eye
09-14-2011 11:06 AM


special cases do not prove the general case
Hi Catholic Scientist,
Just to be clear about my position (if this isn't already clear):
No, its not. Especially if you consider the whole situation:
There may well be specific instances where [able]ness and [willing]ness are all that need to be considered, and the episode of Star Trek referenced may well be one, however this does not prove that the general case, which is what Dawn Bertot is arguing.
My arguments apply to the general case.
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 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-14-2011 11:06 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2011 12:14 PM 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 165 of 211 (634120)
09-19-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by rueh
09-16-2011 10:25 AM


back to response or communicate?
Hi rueh,
picking up at the end of this (as the earlier issues have been dealt with in Message 155 and Message 160)
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.
The first is response and the second is communication.
If we concentrate on the first one, response, then the response is made, [able]ness and [willing]ness, are involved but there is a translation error that prevents understanding of the response.
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.
Again, this comes around to assuming only [able]ness and [willing]ness apply and then concluding that because they failed a further [task] that this means they were un[able] - begging the question again.
Note that they have no control over (a) whether the response is received and (b) whether it is understood. Note further this is NOT part of their defined requirements (to be [able] or [willing]) that the response be received and understood.
Again, you could have a situation where there is a high security system in place, and that the response is sent in a specific secure manner with encryption, and that without the proper security protocols it would not be detected or understood. That does not mean that they were un[willing] or un[able] but that there was an additional requirement that was not met by the Enterprise.
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 150 by rueh, posted 09-16-2011 10:25 AM 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