Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 166 of 211 (634121)
09-19-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
09-19-2011 11:35 AM


Re: special cases do not prove the general case
My arguments apply to the general case.
Yeah, I did get that.
I think you could set it up either way, depending on how you want to use the words. And I think that makes it a less interesting debate than the one about what Spock said in Star Trek... but that's just me.
Not that that's gonna stop me from participating

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 11:35 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1491 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 167 of 211 (634126)
09-19-2011 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dawn Bertot
09-17-2011 8:47 PM


Re: The sunflower test
Hi Dawn Bertot,
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
I don't need another word, Dawn, I just need to show that [able]ness and [willing]ness are not sufficient to categorize all the possibilities to falsify your claim that they are.
In this specific case we have eliminated [willing]ness because there is no mechanism within the sunflower to be [willing] or un[willing].
That leaves [able]ness as the only remaining control if you are correct.
However we have one (1) situation where the sunflower responds to the movement of the sunlamp and we have one (1) situation where the sunflower does not respond to the movement of the sunlamp.
The [able]ness of the sunflower to turn with the sunlamp is demonstrated everytime it is tested with the sunlamp on, so it does not lose this [able]ness in between tests.
Obviously, the sunflower is not [able] to turn the sunlamp on, so that is not a requirement for the sunflower to be [able] to respond.
We also find through this testing that if the sunflower is [able] to respond to the sunlamp when it is on, that it is not un[able] to respond -- it responds every time.
The sunflower is not in control over whether it turns to face the sunlamp or not, and the [able]ness of the sunflower does not determine whether it turns to face the sunlamp or not.
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
Correct it is [able] to function, agreed.
However it does not turn to face the sunlamp when the lamp is off and moved.
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
The [able]ness of the sunflower to function is not sufficient to explain the behavior.
The behavior of the sunflower is programed\compulsive, with an internal programed\compulsive switch: if the switch is on the sunflower turns, if the switch is off the sunflower does not turn.
The switch is turned [on] if there is an external stimulus (sunlight, sunlamp on) and the switch is turned [off] if the external stimulus is absent. The sunflower does not control the switch.
The behavior of the sunflower is controlled by the presence or absence of an external stimulii not under it's control.
It's behavior is compulsive\programed to act according to the switch.
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 151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-17-2011 8:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 6:26 PM RAZD has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3747 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1491 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 169 of 211 (634167)
09-19-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Dawn Bertot
09-17-2011 9:10 PM


the other words . . .
Hi again Dawn Bertot,
Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonest
Are you sure that you haven't used some aspect external to the [crew] (or other subject of the issue) in order to say that it still comes down to [able]ness or [willing]ness?
When we talk about the crew, it is their [able]ness or [willing]ness that applies, not anyone else, as that is who we evaluate for [able]ness or [willing]ness.
Message 156: 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
No, Bertot, he is [able] according to the definitions provided, and he is [willing] according to the definitions provided, but he is over-ruled - there are rules that prevent the action from being complete.
The task is not complete due to reasons beyond his control and beyond the scope of whether HE is [able] and [willing] to do the task.
The task could be
  • vetoed by his commanding officer,
  • assigned to someone else (so the task is completed by someone else)
  • it may be delayed,
  • it may be ignored (ambivalent\apathy again) OR
  • the commanding officer could be waiting for further information before making a decision (undecisive).
In addition, the soldier could NEVER be [able] to control the officer -- this would be like the sunflower being able to control the switch on the sunlamp, or able to cause the sun to rise.
All he can do is present his case and be [able] and [willing] to undertake the task, and then see if he is allowed to undertake the task according to the rules.
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
So you admit that there ARE other factors that control whether a task is undertaken or completed.
Great, so what word would you use to distinguish these other factors, that dont fall under or desribe willing or able?
Curiously, I have provided several terms and conditions:
  • Ambivalence (conflicted)
  • Apathy (don't care)
  • Insufficient time (being done, not done yet)
  • Programs (such as security programs)
  • Compulsions (compulsive action \ compulsive inaction)
  • Rules
  • Choice by chance (flipping a coin)
Now, I predict/expect you will attempt to show that these alternate conditions make the [doer] of the task un[able] by applying equivocation on the definitions that apply to the [doer] in relation to the [task] ... in spite of claiming that you don't do this.
The problem you have is that they don't always result in no [response] [task] completion, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, and the difference is not something the [doer] can cause to occur one way or the other.
You cannot control the flip of a coin. There is no aspect of [able]ness or [willing]ness that can control these external conditions.
Another word I give you is chaotic -- the general unpredictability of things that cannot be controlled.
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
Or when the chaotic winds of nature (hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, windstorms) blow the tree over . . . that may blow over this tree or that tree, so the [able]ness of the tree to stand is not the only thing that controls whether it stands through a storm, it depends on the chaotic nature of the storm being "kind" to the tree.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

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 152 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-17-2011 9:10 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 6:48 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 178 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 7:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 170 of 211 (634168)
09-19-2011 7:17 PM


I forgot
Here's another possibility:
Maybe you have yet to perceive a response because I FORGOT to make one. Look at this forum. There is a button up there called "Messaging". I haven't looked up there in months. For some reason today I saw it blinking with nice cordial post from my friend Straggler and discovered that there was a whole book of unanswered messages. I was capable, I was willing. But I forgot to look.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 8:45 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1491 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 171 of 211 (634194)
09-19-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dawn Bertot
09-18-2011 4:59 PM


apathy, ambivalence and dishonesty
Hi Dawn Bertot,
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.
As I pointed out earlier, these are more like zero positions than being [willing] or un[willing], where:
quote:
Message 52:
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.
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
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.
Consider these words in conjunction with this decision process:
Message 127
question
                    |
        is there sufficient valid
     information available to decide
       |                        |
      yes                       no
       |                        |
   decide based               is a
   on empirical             decision
  valid evidence            necessary?
      (A)                  /         \
                         yes          no ... but ...
                         /            |             |
                      decide         why          make a
                     based on       decide       decision
                    inadequate      at this       anyway
                     evidence        time?       based on
                      =guess         =wait       =opinion
                       (B)            (C)          (D)
  • You may have sufficient information to decide to take action (A).
  • You may have insufficient information to decide to take action, but it may be necessary to take action (B).
  • You may have insufficient information to decide to take action, and it may be unnecessary to take action (C). If you are [able] and [willing] to take action (D), you may chose to take action, but the action may or may not be taken delayed due to various other necessities.
In Case (B) you could be ambivalent, conflicted, over which course to take, yet feel compelled to reach a decision on inadequate information: you toss a coin and leave your choice to fate (or use some other method to guess which course to take).
In Case (D) you could be apathetic, not caring, about which course to take, but decide to toss a coin and leave your choice to fate (or use some other method to randomly select which course to take).
You are [able], you are neither [willing] nor un[willing] to do the task, you use a random selection process to decide instead, exemplified here by the toss of a coin.
btw, in going back over the thread to find these previous posts I also ran into these tidbits:
Message 47: The question is were they willing and able to toss the coin. The answer is yes.
Oh. My. What do we have here? If he is [able] and [willing] to tie his shoes then apathy towards answering the phone does not apply?
Message 101: Here is a hint. RAZD has tried ambivalent and apathy. His problem is that he has assumed that where there is ambivalence or apathy there is no will. He has assumed this, he has not demonstrated it
For his contention and example of these words to catagorize another area, he first needs to establish that one has no Will at all, even when apathetic, or approaching apathy
And what do we have here? If he is [able] and [willing] to tie his shoes then apathy towards answering the phone cannot apply? Really?
Message 152:
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
It looks to me like you have done this.
So how do you explain your comment in Message 47 that they are willing to toss the coin, and your comment in Message 101 that apathy only applies if one has no will at all?
Why can't I be willing to tie my shoes and apathetic about answering the phone? Or are you actually caught being dishonest in the application of apathy, by saying that [willing]ness can apply to things other than the task?
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
Except that they do not explain the sunflower and they do not explain apathy and ambivalence and the reliance on chance rather than will, just to name a few conditions where they are not adequate to cover all the contingencies that may be encountered.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : subT

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 158 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2011 4:59 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1491 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 172 of 211 (634196)
09-19-2011 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by xongsmith
09-19-2011 7:17 PM


Re: I forgot
Hi xongsmith, and welcome to the thread.
Maybe you have yet to perceive a response because I FORGOT to make one.
Indeed, something else came up of higher priority and then one forgot to go back to the response.
As in I am [able] and [willing] to pay my bills, so I put them on the counter until bill day, but sometimes I forget to pay the bills.
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 170 by xongsmith, posted 09-19-2011 7:17 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1491 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 173 of 211 (634204)
09-19-2011 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dawn Bertot
09-18-2011 8:05 PM


several terms already provided - no refutation
Hi again Dawn Bertot,
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.
Amusingly, several have been supplied. See Message 169 for a recap of those words.
Curiously, I have provided several terms and conditions:
  • Ambivalence (conflicted)
  • Apathy (don't care)
  • Insufficient time (being done, not done yet)
  • Programs (such as security programs)
  • Compulsions (compulsive action \ compulsive inaction)
  • Rules
  • Choice by chance (flipping a coin)
To which is added [chaotic] conditions and [forgetful]ness.
i have shown that none of his attempts at terms thus far will work
Curiously, I must have missed those posts of yours when replying to all your posts - so far all I see is you equivocating on the application of the definitions, being dishonest in the application of the terms in order to force your conclusion to match your preconception. See Message 171 for examples of this behavior.
fortunately reality is not a perconception,
Unfortunately opinion, including yours, has no effect on reality.
You have an idee fixe, a preconception that these two terms apply to all situations, and yet we see several instances when they do not provide sufficient answers. You have been caught trying to change the situations so that you can claim [able] or [willing], but that doesn't make your position viable.
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 162 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2011 8:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2011 10:09 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 175 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-19-2011 10:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 179 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 11:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 174 of 211 (634209)
09-19-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by RAZD
09-19-2011 9:24 PM


Re: several terms already provided - no refutation
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.
Amusingly, several have been supplied. See Message 169 for a recap of those words.
Curiously, I have provided several terms and conditions:
  • Ambivalence (conflicted)
  • Apathy (don't care)
  • Insufficient time (being done, not done yet)
  • Programs (such as security programs)
  • Compulsions (compulsive action \ compulsive inaction)
  • Rules
  • Choice by chance (flipping a coin)
To which is added [chaotic] conditions and [forgetful]ness.
But you "could" have those fall under willing and/or able if you use the words in that way. Like how Spock was using the term willing to mean/imply accomplishing the task, so, say, ambivalence could be consider as acting on your will to do it, thereby making you "unwilling", or you could consider it a problem that prevents your ability to do it, as in you can't do it because you're so ambivalent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 9:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 175 of 211 (634216)
09-19-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by RAZD
09-19-2011 9:24 PM


Re: several terms already provided - no refutation
Unfortunately opinion, including yours, has no effect on reality.
Whoa, slow down there homie, I ve now got 4 of your new posts to respond to, let me get to these before you give anymore to me
Thanks Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 9:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 176 of 211 (634330)
09-20-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
09-19-2011 12:58 PM


Re: The sunflower test
I don't need another word, Dawn, I just need to show that [able]ness and [willing]ness are not sufficient to categorize all the possibilities to falsify your claim that they are.
In this specific case we have eliminated [willing]ness because there is no mechanism within the sunflower to be [willing] or un[willing].
You have only eliminated it if you are not talking about human behavior. otherwise it still applies and no behavior will be described except by willing and unwilling
That leaves [able]ness as the only remaining control if you are correct.
However we have one (1) situation where the sunflower responds to the movement of the sunlamp and we have one (1) situation where the sunflower does not respond to the movement of the sunlamp.
The [able]ness of the sunflower to turn with the sunlamp is demonstrated everytime it is tested with the sunlamp on, so it does not lose this [able]ness in between tests.
Obviously, the sunflower is not [able] to turn the sunlamp on, so that is not a requirement for the sunflower to be [able] to respond.
We also find through this testing that if the sunflower is [able] to respond to the sunlamp when it is on, that it is not un[able] to respond -- it responds every time.
The sunflower is not in control over whether it turns to face the sunlamp or not, and the [able]ness of the sunflower does not determine whether it turns to face the sunlamp or not.
This is alot of rehetoric and only the last sentence has any validity.
Control is not the issues. if the sunflower can perform its internal functions, however, whenever, wherever it is ABLE to complete its function
the sunflower illustration in no way removes the only two categories unless you are speaking about unwilling, simply because it does not apply
The [able]ness of the sunflower to function is not sufficient to explain the behavior.
true because ableness is decided not by an organism but by laws already in place that act upon that organism.
The behavior of the sunflower is programed\compulsive, with an internal programed\compulsive switch: if the switch is on the sunflower turns, if the switch is off the sunflower does not turn.
The switch is turned [on] if there is an external stimulus (sunlight, sunlamp on) and the switch is turned [off] if the external stimulus is absent. The sunflower does not control the switch.
The behavior of the sunflower is controlled by the presence or absence of an external stimulii not under it's control.
It's behavior is compulsive\programed to act according to the switch.
Again ABLENESS of the sunflower is not what decides ableness and willingness. This is decided by reality and laws already in place before the sunflower functions
By using the example of the sunflower you must believe the flower has certain existing programmed functions. If the purpose of the sunflower is to blossom and this brings it to fruiton, then it does not matter how this happens. it will only be able or unable to do this, depnding upon the already existing laws that surround it, oe whether it has a defect
What is the purpose of the sunflower to begin with
The behavior of the sunflower is controlled by the presence or absence of an external stimulii not under it's control.
exacally, this is why ableness and unableness exist before the sunflower fuctions, or whether it does or not. No action in the mind or the physical world will fall outside able or unable, because the person or the funtion of any property is not what decides ableness or unableness
Existing laws already in place will determine whether a thing can funtion or not
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 12:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2011 12:51 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 177 of 211 (634332)
09-20-2011 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by RAZD
09-19-2011 7:02 PM


Re: the other words . . .
When we talk about the crew, it is their [able]ness or [willing]ness that applies, not anyone else, as that is who we evaluate for [able]ness or [willing]ness.
Even the second ships crews ableness and willing ness is irrelivant.. the condition that is preventing them is outside themselves. Some law of a physical nature was interrupted, broke or ignored
So even when they were willing and able, the source from which able and unable orginates acts to prevent or make them unable to contact the other ship
No, Bertot, he is [able] according to the definitions provided, and he is [willing] according to the definitions provided, but he is over-ruled - there are rules that prevent the action from being complete.
The task is not complete due to reasons beyond his control and beyond the scope of whether HE is [able] and [willing] to do the task.
The task could be
vetoed by his commanding officer,
assigned to someone else (so the task is completed by someone else)
it may be delayed,
it may be ignored (ambivalent\apathy again) OR
the commanding officer could be waiting for further information before making a decision (undecisive).
again Zen deist, you are letting a book decide the strict definiton of reality, instead of reality defining reality.
"Reason beyond his control" are called laws of reality that make him unable to complete that task. Unableness does not originate in a person or organism, it is decided by laws that superceed those properties, its called reality
Curiously, I have provided several terms and conditions:
Ambivalence (conflicted)
Apathy (don't care)
Insufficient time (being done, not done yet)
Programs (such as security programs)
Compulsions (compulsive action \ compulsive inaction)
Rules
Choice by chance (flipping a coin)
wrong these are responses, or we could call them responses to reality and I could add 10000 more to the list. But as I have demonstrated they do not describe anything different besides willing or able, because they dont decide what able and willing is or is not. Reality does this for us
I have shown that no matter your example that reality and its laws only makes able or unable possible, depending on the task, you bellieve the property should accomplish
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 7:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2011 5:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 178 of 211 (634338)
09-20-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by RAZD
09-19-2011 7:02 PM


Re: the other words . . .
You cannot control the flip of a coin. There is no aspect of [able]ness or [willing]ness that can control these external conditions.
Another word I give you is chaotic -- the general unpredictability of things that cannot be controlled.
There is no such thing as chaos. everything has a logical explanation for its actions, IOWs one thing flows from another reason, they are called laws of nature and reason
When the law prevents me I am unable, no matter the circumstance and no other word can be found to descibe unable
Chaos is a human expression with no basis in reality
Surely you cant be serious about me not controlling the flip of a coin
The result of the coins flip is determined by strength, pressure, wieight of the coin and anyother law already in place, acted upon the coin
it is not chaotic or random, because those do not actually exist, its only the laws of nature or reality, going through thier motions
The result of the coins flip is only unknown (not random or chotic)to me because I have not at that moment figured out the laws that made its result, what it was. but those laws still exist even in that moment, even if I dont know what they were
There is no such thing as randomness or chaos
here is an example. If God exists and he is all knowing, would it be any trouble for him to make the coin come up heads 1000 times out of 1000, without any majic involved? Not at all, because he knows all the laws that would be required in that moment, to make that happen
So what you are desribing as chaotic is nothing of the sort. If I understood those laws required in that moment or in those consecutive tries, I could make the coin come up heads everytime
Therefore I am unable, not because I dont have the ABILITY to possibly know those laws, but because I dont at that moment know all the laws required to accomplish that feat
So while I have the ability from a logical standpoint, Im unable due to an outside inability
Now pay close attention. That which you describe as randomness, the coin coming up tales instead of heads, is not actually randomness, its simply existing laws being acted upon given the physics of any toss. No randomness in reality, just inaccuracy on my part by not abiding by the laws of nature,, correct?
Dawn bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 7:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2011 9:07 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 179 of 211 (634360)
09-20-2011 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by RAZD
09-19-2011 9:24 PM


Re: several terms already provided - no refutation
There is no aspect of [able]ness or [willing]ness that can control these external conditions.
Sure there is. If I am able to know and employ the necessary laws already in place Those external conditions will make me able, correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2011 9:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2011 9:25 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1491 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 180 of 211 (634363)
09-21-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Dawn Bertot
09-20-2011 6:26 PM


Re: The sunflower test - again
Hi Dawn Bertot,
You have only eliminated it if you are not talking about human behavior. otherwise it still applies and no behavior will be described except by willing and unwilling
Obsessive Compulsive behavior is similar. A person with OCD is forced to behave in certain ways, whether they are willing to behave in that manner or not (and it frequently is in spite of being unwilling to behave that way because of embarrassment). It over-rides [willing]ness.
Control is not the issues. if the sunflower can perform its internal functions, however, whenever, wherever it is ABLE to complete its function
Correct, but when the external stimulus\signal is blocked or not sent it does not perform its internal functions to turn with the sun\sunlamp, even though it is able to do so.
the sunflower illustration in no way removes the only two categories unless you are speaking about unwilling, simply because it does not apply
But I'm not removing both. You have agreed that [willing]ness does not apply to the sunflower: there is, of course, no brain to be willing, but how do you explain the difference in behavior of the sunflower when you admit that it is [able] to function:
• Why does the sunflower not turn to match the location of the sun on a cloudy day? -- it is "ABLE to complete its function" so what prevents it?
• Why does the sunflower not turn to match the location of the sunlamp when it is off? -- it is" ABLE to complete its function" so what prevents it?
What we have instead of a subjective [willing]ness decision making process, is an objective programmed response that reacts according to the program and the input to the program.
[willing]ness ≡ 0 [programed] & [positive input] [programed] & [negative input] not[programed] to [respond]
[able] to [respond] [programed], [positive input]
& [able] to [respond]
response made

[programed], [negative input]
but [able] to [respond]
response not made

not[programed]
but [able] to [respond]
response not made
not[able] to [respond]
[programed], [positive input]
but not[able] to [respond]
response not made
[programed], [negative input]
but not[able] to [respond]
response not made
not[programed]
& not[able] to [respond]
response not made
The sunflower is either [able] or un[able] to respond, depending on its genetics, development, nutrition etc.
The sunflower is either [programmed] or not[programmed] to respond, depending on its genetics, development, nutrition etc.
If [programmed] the sunflower reacts one way (turns) to positive inputs, and a different way (does not turn) to negative inputs, inputs that can vary from minute to minute.
true because ableness is decided not by an organism but by laws already in place that act upon that organism.
Oh dear, what's going on here? Invention of an external [able]ness to prop up your claim? You are just sticking the word out there to attempt to claim that it now is a matter of [able]ness what decision is made by the program. That is not part of the definitions of the term [able] agreed to in Message 26: "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."
Laws\rules and programs do not have [able]ness, they either work or they don't.
The [able]ness is or isn't exhibited, it isn't 'decided' to be [able] or un[able] by some external source, but is a characteristic of the acting object - in this case the sunflower, where you have admitted that it is "ABLE to complete its function" -- and this is the only [able]ness that applies.
Again ABLENESS of the sunflower is not what decides ableness and willingness. This is decided by reality and laws already in place before the sunflower functions
You might as well say "god/s-did-it" then and because god/s is [able] and [willing] then everything is due to the [able]ness and [willing]ness of god/s. This is called moving the goal posts, which is dishonest.
exacally, this is why ableness and unableness exist before the sunflower fuctions, or whether it does or not. No action in the mind or the physical world will fall outside able or unable, because the person or the funtion of any property is not what decides ableness or unableness
Existing laws already in place will determine whether a thing can funtion or not
You agreed to the definition of what determines ableness in Message 30:
Dawn Bertot writes:
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
And the additional word we are talking about here is [programmed].
Do you rescind that agreement? or are you again being dishonest in the application of those definitions to something outside the object that performs the action?
What you have is a programmed decision run by rules of behavior, and we know that the sunflower is [able] to run the program because we have tested it. The response of the sunflower can vary from minute to minute as conditions change the input stimulus.
Existing laws already in place will determine whether a thing can funtion or not
The "Existing laws already in place" is the program, the program is able to function: if there is stimulus there is response; if there is no stimulus there is no response.
The [able]ness of the sunflower to turn is demonstrated in the testing: it is [able] to turn.
The [able]ness of the sunflower to run the program is demonstrated in the testing: it is [able] to react positively when the sunlight is on and it is [able] to react negatively when the sunlamp is off.
[willing]ness ≡ 0 [programed] & [positive input] [programed] & [negative input]
[able] to [respond] [programed], [positive input]
& [able] to [respond]
response made

[programed], [negative input]
& [able] to [respond]
response NOT made

When the sunflower is [able], the program determines the result. One result is positive and one result is negative, and the result depends on variable input from external conditions.
The ability of the earth to spin on its axis and orbit the sun is not the issue, it is the ability of the sunflower AND the result of the programming that is the issue.
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 176 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2011 6:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by rueh, posted 09-21-2011 8:01 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 183 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2011 1:16 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 184 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2011 1:29 AM 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