From
Message 437 on the
Subjective Evidence of Gods thread:
Hi Dawn Bertot, been awhile.
Interesting, so I am unable or unwilling, to learn, correct. Can you give me another category, that is neither of these two
Try this visualization chart:
| willing
| not[willing]
|
able
| willing & able reply made
| not[willing] but able reply not made
|
not[able]
| willing but not[able] reply not made
| not[willing] & not[able] reply not made
|
Where not[X] is the logical form for everything that is not [X] (used like (-x) in maths. So we have a grid of (+x), (-x), (+y) and (-y) and four possible results).
Does that sum up your position?
The question then comes down to what "willing" and "able" mean, whether there is a null (0) position, and whether there exists another dimension category.
If we define "able" to mean that they have in good working order whatever is necessary to send and receive and understand the communication, and "willing" to mean caring, motivated, or inclined (etc), then we need to consider if there is a "zero" position between +x and -x for these terms.
When it comes to "willing" it may be possible to be ambivalent (a null position), answering sometimes and other times not, as more of a whim than a willingness, perhaps based on the toss of a coin.
| willing
| ambivalent
| not[willing]
|
able
| willing & able reply made
| ambivalent & able reply made sometimes\occasionally
| not[willing] but able reply not made
|
not[able]
| willing but not[able] reply not made
| ambivalent but not[able] reply not made
| not[willing] & not[able] reply not made
|
Next, if there is a "Z" position\dimension with it's obverse "not{Z}"
{Z}
| willing
| ambivalent
| not[willing]
|
able
| {Z}, willing & able reply made
| {Z}, ambivalent & able reply made sometimes\occasionally
| {Z}, not[willing] but able reply not made
|
not[able]
| {Z}, willing but not[able] reply not made
| {Z}, ambivalent but not[able] reply not made
| {Z}, not[willing] & not[able] reply not made
|
and
not{Z}
| willing
| ambivalent
| not[willing]
|
able
| not{Z}, but willing & able
reply not made
| not{Z}, ambivalent & able
reply not made
| not{Z}, not[willing] but able reply not made
|
not[able]
| not{Z}, willing but not[able] reply not made
| not{Z}, ambivalent but not[able] reply not made
| not{Z}, not[willing] & not[able] reply not made
|
Your question is what would this {Z} position\dimension be, yes?
Again, the {Z} position could be anything orthogonal to "willing" and "able", including the use of a coin toss.
Enjoy.
Dawn Bertot's reply
Message 439:
quote:
RAZD writes Your question is what would this {Z} position\dimension be, yes?
Again, the {Z} position could be anything orthogonal to "willing" and "able", including the use of a coin toss.
Enjoy.
To admin, would you allow RAZD the time to explain in simple terms what his meaning are here
My interest is to see if he is suggesting that there is actuall another word or area where there is something other than, Willing, Un willing, Able or Unable
Thanks for your consideration
Dawn Bertot
This thread is designed to address just this issue and no others.
My first goal is to restate Dawn Bertot's position to show that I understand it:
Does this show all the possibilities as Spock implied (IIRC the comment was that they did not respond because they were either unwilling or unable to, or something similar):
| willing
| not[willing]
|
able
| willing & able reply made
| not[willing] but able reply not made
|
not[able]
| willing but not[able] reply not made
| not[willing] & not[able] reply not made
|
Where not[X] is the logical form for everything that is not included in [X] (used like (-x) in maths).
So using the math comparison, we have a grid of (+x), (-x), (+y) and (-y) and four possible results:
- (+x,+y)
- (+x,-y)
- (-x,+y)
- (-x,-y)
And these could be a plotted as four points on a graph.
Dawn Bertot writes:
My interest is to see if he is suggesting that there is actuall another word or area where there is something other than, Willing, Un willing, Able or Unable
The question, as I see it, is:
Is there another word\concept that needs to be considered: whether there exists another (z) dimension to the graph.
My understanding is that Dawn Bertot says there are no other word\dimension that are not covered in some way by " Willing, Un willing, Able or Unable" -- but if there is, what is an example.
Dawn Bertot: If this does not represent your position, then please correct me.
After we agree that this is the basic position, then we can move on to what is meant by "able" and "willing" and their negatives to see what is covered and whether there are any categories that are not covered.
Enjoy.
There being no forum for logical questions, this would best be sent to
Coffee House (I don't want another
The Great Debate at this time, nor do I want to restrict participation of others, particularly anyone trying to
help either Dawn Bertot or myself).
There should be no barbs or mud slings if all we are discussing is the logic, where it leads, and whether or not it is valid -- this should be like discussing a math problem.
I will ignore posts with insults and expect similar treatment.