On Nov 1, 9:47 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 22, 7:17 pm, Bridge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 22, 12:22 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > HI MIKE!!! > > > > I miss you man! > > > > I was gonna reply to this yesterday but didn't for one reason or > > > another. Maybe I was just waiting for you. > > > I almost replied to one of your other posts, the first paragraph was > > freaking tasty. > > > It was your dimension response, it was a bit dizzying. > > > I'd like to see the practical applications of it. > > I need to complete that post. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a feeling I get sometimes, or more of a thinking really, like > > > for example, a friend I haven't seen for a while, and I'll find myself > > > thinking about them, and then within five minutes, they'll call, when > > > we haven't seen each other in quite a while. It does not seem like > > > coincidence. But at the same time, we didn't plan to meet up or talk, > > > and there is no way I could have picked up environmental clues > > > subliminally, because there aren't any. I bring this up in this > > > thread because some might see such things as proof of a connection > > > that transcends the physical. My Faith takes it for granted that this > > > is so. I could say it proves Faith, but, there is no evidence that I > > > can present. I can't show anyone a recording of what went on in my > > > head before my friend contacted me! > > > I see the same thing but without a practical use there's no need to > > prove it. Right? > > It's just kind of cool when it happens. >
Word. > > > > > > > > > > > So in this situation, if we can use the word proof, it is a very > > > subjective kind of proof --- it only really proves anything to me. > > > Does it in fact prove anything to me? Some would say that if you > > > can't show someone else, then you haven't got a proof. I'm not > > > looking for proof in order to have Faith --- I already have it. I > > > "look for" good things to happen, because I like good things to > > > happen, and my Faith says good things should happen, so when they do, > > > that can be seen as a proof of Faith, but it isn't the kind of proof > > > that some look for when they wish to test first, and believe only > > > after the results of the test come in. > > > > Some would dismiss the kinds of proof I have been talking about, with > > > the general heading, "subjective feeling." > > > I think of it less as "proof" and more as a "lead", like if you were > > an investigator. > > > I can't really object to > > > > that, other than to ask, why are some so eager to dismiss subjective > > > feelings as significant data?? I am a man, not a woman. Thus, I am > > > not ruled by my feelings, I tend more to be ruled by my rationality. > > > But this is not to say that I do not take my feelings into account. I > > > take it for granted that my feeling about anything is an important > > > piece of data that I must account, if I am to have a full logical > > > picture with which to work. > > > > I don't want this to get too long, and I do want to address the lead > > > question. What is proof? Proof establishes truth. > > > I don't know. Lately it seems like proof establishes control of truth. > > > How bout this: > > > "I don't believe in proof" > > > -Bridge > > > ;-) > > Like you had a choice in the matter!!! I had to think about it for a sec. The subject of "proof" kinda made me nauseous. > > How about, deductive inference is a means of discovering truth? Then > proof is simply a report of a deductive inference. > > We know, deductive inference from true premises leads to a true > conclusion. So if one "knows" the premises to be true, and there are > no errors, in the proof, then one knows the conclusion to be true. > Are there other methods that lead to actual knowledge? How does one > "know" one's assumptions are true in the first place? I don't believe we ever know. > > > > > > > > > > > What is truth? I > > > > was going to write that truth is a property of statements, but that is > > > just in words. We spend the first two years of our lives learning > > > without words, and we have a sense of the truth of things that does > > > not rely on words, which is older and thus more established in each of > > > us than anything connected with speech. In this medium, there are > > > ONLY words, so it is a little misleading for us if we try to judge our > > > truth-testing mechanisms by what anyone might be able to "prove" on a > > > forum such as this. But perhaps I can convey my meaning better by > > > stipulating that this is not only a true statement, it also extends > > > beyond itself into the realm of the pre-verbal, and applies there. > > > There is at least a parallel in us between verbal and pre-verbal > > > awareness, and an analogy to be made. And taking that analogy into > > > account, I can then say simply that proof establishes truth, and truth > > > is a property of statements, specifically propositions. The analogy > > > to the pre-verbal must be taken into account to fully grasp what I am > > > saying here. > > > > Is conviction the same thing as knowledge? > > > No! > > What is the difference? > > > > > > > > > I would submit, here, that> to the very degree that conviction is > > identical with knowledge, proof > > > consists in what is convincing. And I will observe, that the equation > > > or inequality of conviction with knowledge varies from person to > > > person, and that so, therefore, does the equation between conviction > > > and proof. > > > > In one individual, whom we may call prudent, he makes it a policy not > > > believe more than he knows. In his case, proof is legitimately what > > > is convincing to him. In another individual, whom we may call > > > gullible, he takes many things on trust and faith, without actually > > > knowing them. He is convinced that the things he has heard are true > > > --- in his mind, they are as good as knowledge. If knowledge is > > > "justified, true, belief," the key to the question of knowledge is > > > justification, and while anyone could come up with a set of rules for > > > what constitutes actual justification, in the end, it is what > > > convinces each person; it is a subjective judgment, in the end, which > > > is why there is to this day still so much controversy over what > > > constitutes actual knowledge. So for our gullible individual, he may > > > be convinced by things that would not convince our prudent individual, > > > and it is more likely that our gullible individual will turn out to be > > > wrong in some of his beliefs, which clearly indicates that he did not > > > possess knowledge, even though he thought he did. (Or accepted his > > > beliefs at face value without asking whether he really knows them.) > > > > tl;dr: Proof may be merely what is convincing, in a prudent > > > individual, but not in a gullible one. The answer varies from subject > > > to subject. > > > > On Oct 21, 11:40 pm, Bridge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 18, 12:06 am, atypican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Is there anyone on this forum to disagree with this maxim? Or find > > > > > anything objectionable about it? > > > > > Or do people just use the word inappropriately? > > > > > I always wonder how much of what certain scientists have pondered has > > > > been considered proven and then later disproven or shown to be true > > > > for only a certain set of parameters. > > > > > Was it ever proven? > > > > > It's like they use "proven" to mean, "Well we'll just work on other > > > > stuff for a while." > > > > > > Or maybe someone can tell me who else has made this point ahead of me, > > > > > I strongly suspect at least someone has. > > > > > > It's part of a literal logical framework I am working on related to > > > > > one of my religiously oriented projects.
