Your words: That which is objective is independent of anyone’s opinion.

To prove does not require two people. To prove simply requires providing supporting proof--(1) physical evidence, (2) eyewitness reports, or/and (3) logical arguments. In the sense of being able to lead a horse to water but not necessarily being able to force it to drink, whether or not someone else accepts the proof as proof is independent of the proof--the proof stands as a causal explanation regardless of anyone’s opinion of it.

So long as you have the idea that to prove requires two or more people, that the rejection for any reason by one person means a proof does not prove, then you will miss the point of objectivity, which is that that which is objective is independent of opinion. What is is what is regardless of what you think it is.

Your words: I gave a previous example thus:

Here’s another example: Regardless of your opinion of whether or not fire burns, fire burns, and if I stick your hand into my woodstove the woodfire will burn your hand, and that burning will produce a lot of yelling and screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth on your part plus an attitude that will most likely prompt you to never come to my house again. Thus, the objective fact that fire burns is independent of your subjective opinion of whether or not fire burns.

We can look to science for many examples of objective facts and proofs in terms of causal explanations. Under controlled lab experiments, water will be produced every time oxygen and hydrogen are mixed in the quantity of H2O--two parts of hydrogen to one part of oxygen. This is an objective fact independent of anyone’s subjective opinion of it.

Dr. Stanley Miller proved that under controlled conditions theoretically replicating the mixture of gasses in the atmosphere of the early Earth, when an electrical current was introduced, as would have been by electrical storms in the early Earth’s atmosphere, the resulting process produced amino acids--the building blocks of life. This experiment has been replicated many times and it now an accepted scientific principle, a principle which is independent of anyone’s opinion of it. Do the experiment the way Miller did it and you will get amino acids every time.

Thus, that which is objective is independent of subjectivity, which is opinion/belief.

Your words: Many test pilots did in fact die in testing airplanes. As did lab animals as well as humans in testing medical procedures and cures. I am a pilot, and if the computer models are built upon known scientific facts, and suggest that a plane would fly, I would fly it. But you need to understand that first flights are most often runway tests--tests conducted by restricting the flight to the length of the runway and heights less than a hundred feet above the runway--for safety.

Your words: The human mind is not necessarily a total mystery, and some objective facts can be developed concerning what it is and how it works.

Since your mind is your personal system of desires/fears/priorities which causes your behavior as your actions and reactions/personality/etc., if, by observing you consistently over many years I determine that your priorities for food are (1) fried clams, (2) lobster, (2) steak, (4) cheeseburgers, if I observe that your behavior suggests that you are hungry, and I look around and see that fried clams/lobster/steaks/cheeseburgers are all choices within your immediate environment, and I observe that you have enough money to purchase whatever foods you want, then I can predict with a high degree of probability that you will choose fried clams.

Notice throughout this message that I an observing and drawing inferences from what I observe. The essence of the scientific method is the requirement for the observation of the people/things/events who/which are the natural phenomena of reality. So long as I observe carefully, there is a strong possibility that I will be highly accurate in my observations and draw therefore highly accurate inferences.

This does not mean that I should embark upon a career as a mindreader.

But it does mean that understanding human motivation is not necessarily a total mystery.

I want to make sure you understand that (1) science does/scientists do have an anchor--the relentless pursuit of nature's truth using the scientific method, which requires observation of the people/things/events of reality instead of reading holy books for solutions to problems and descriptions of causality; and (2) that through the observation of people science/scientists can create an understanding what is the human mind/human nature, including an understanding of the 'I' or ‘me’, which is an individual's personality--the individual's mind's desires/fears/priorities causing his behavior--his actions and reactions.

Here is a mathematical expression for the operation/function of the human mind.

Self-esteem is an individual' perception of himself and reaction to his perception of himself. Thus, self-esteem involves self-perception and a reaction/feeling to that perception.

If you have a desire, D--for a person/thing/event, and a realization, R--a person/thing/event, of that desire, then as you achieve more of your desire your level of happiness increases, and if you achieve less your level of happiness decreases.

For example, if you want to earn $1000 next week, your level of happiness is 100% if you earn $1000 (or more) and less than 100% as you earn less than $1000--75% if you earn $750, or 50% if you earn $500, etc.

This can be expressed as --

SEi = Ri/Di x 100%

Where

SE = Self-Esteem
i = Identification number, i
R = Realization
D = Desire

If D = $1000; R = $1000, then --

SEi = $1000/$1000 x 100% = 100%

If R = $750, then --

SEi = $750/$1000 x 100% = 75%

If R = $500, then --

SEi = $500/$1000 x 100% = 50%

The above mathematical expression serves for one Desire, Di, and its Realization, Ri.

The following mathematical expression accounts for all desires and realizations an individual might have.

SET = (R1/D1 x P1 x 100%) + (P2/D2 x R2 x 100%) + ... + (Pn/Dn x Rn x 100%)

Where:

SET = Self-Esteem Total
R = Realization of a Desire [What you get of what you want]
D = Desire [Wanting a person/thing/event]
P = Priority
n = The last number, n, and of series

Thus, if I knew all of your desires/fears and priorities, and your realizations--your achievements of your desires and your avoidances of your fears, then I could determine your self-esteem--how you perceive yourself and your reaction to yourself as a feeling, particularly as an emotion of happiness or unhappiness as sadness, anger or/and fear. You are your desires/fears/priorities.

Your mind--your 'I'/’me’--is your system of desires/fears/priorities.

You function according to

SEi = Ri/Di x 100%

and

SET = (R1/D1 x P1 x 100%) + (P2/D2 x R2 x 100%) + ... + (Pn/Dn x Rn x 100%)

Thus, you can find your 'I'/’me’ through science, particularly, through psychology, particularly through cognitive psychologies--Dr. Albert Ellis/Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, Dr. Aaron T. Beck/Cognitive Psychology, and Operational Psychology.

You can find more on Operational Psychology at www.bobkwebsite.com

Notice that religion is not necessary for (1) the definition of the human mind and (2) the mathematical expressions describing the functioning of the human mind.

In summary: If you insist that proof is subjective and cannot be objective by insisting that to prove requires two or more people, then you will fail to understand that that which is objective proof is independent of subjective opinion--to prove does not require two or more people, and you will overlook/fail to see/hear/touch/smell/taste those people/things/events of reality who/which exist--are comprised of matter/energy in contrast to being the content of ideas/dreams/fantasies/etc.--and are thus objective and independent of your opinion of them.

[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited March 23, 2001).]

Wow, you think I can be represented or modeled using a mathematical formula.

All due respect, I find that preposterous. Making educated guesses about what I may do based on behavior patterns is a far cry from defining and modeling my mind.

I think we may just have to agree to disagree because according to the definition of proof, until someone believes, nothing has been proven, and all you have is evidence and measurements and conjecture.

Proof initially involves of some statement or conjecture, then a presentation of evidence and logic that is used to convince others that you have met some mutually agreed upon standards of evidence. Your proof is only applicable to those that will agree with those standards.

I think your term 'objective proof' is just another way of saying hypothesis.

Cambridge Dictionary

dmvprof:

Your words: First, ”... according to the definition of proof, until someone believes, nothing has been proven, and all you have is evidence and measurements and conjecture ...,” let us look at several definitions of proof.

American Heritage Dictionary.
proof 1. The evidence establishing the validity of a given assertion. 2. Conclusive demonstration of something. 3. The proving of something.

Notice that nowhere is there a requirement for someone to accept/believe a proof before it IS a proof.

Peter Angeles, The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy.
proof 1. Demonstration; a process that establishes (provides firm evidence of complete justification for) a truth or fact. 2. In logic, the series of arguments based on the rules of inference of that logic, which are used to derive the conclusion from the premises.

Notice that nowhere is there a requirement for someone to accept/believe a proof before it IS a proof.

Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.
proof Informally, a procedure that brings conviction. More formally, a deductively valid argument starting from true premises, that yields the conclusion. ...

Blackburn’s definition of proof as “... a procedure that brings conviction ...” can be construed to mean ‘requiring someone to accept the proof,’ but it can also mean ‘a procedure providing evidence or reason for accepting the evidence.’ The requirement for convincing someone before evidence is proof is not clearly presented in the definition, thus, in my opinion, this definition does not clearly agree with your position that proof is not proof until someone agrees that it is proof.

Let’s also take a look at definitions of objective and of subjective.

The American Heritage Dictionary.
objective adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually. ...

objective noun.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal.

subjective adj. Abbr. subj.
1. a. Proceeding from or taking place within a person's mind such as to be unaffected by the external world. b. Particular to a given person; personal.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
...
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.
objective 1. Referring (a) to the ability to make an evaluation of a situation without being affected by feelings, emotions, and preconceived notions, and (b) to the support of a statement (idea, judgment, knowledge, decision) with proof and evidence based on actual events. 2. That goal, end, ideal, or object sought after by an activity or feeling.

subjective Referring to 1. that which is derived from the mind (the consciousness, the ego, the self, our perceptions, our personal judgments) and not from external, objective sources. 2. that which exists in consciousness but has no external, objective reference or possible confirmation. 3. that which is relative to the knower’s own individual experiences (sensations, perceptions, personal reactions, history, idiosyncrasies).

Subjective is contrasted with objective and with public. It is also used to refer to the experiencing modes and processes of the experiencer (subject) in contrast with the things (objects) in the real world that he or she is experiencing. Subjective is often used pejoratively connote privately arrived at judgments based upon emotional or prejudiced grounds without the support of objective, logical analysis.

Arthur S. Reber, in The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology.
objective 1. adj. The basic meaning here derives from the notion of an object as a thing which is real, demonstrable, or physical, and hence whose status or function is publicly verifiable, externally observable, and nor dependent on internal or subjective experience. This general sense of the term is reflected in the following, more specific usages. 2. adj. Characterizing a thing whose nature is determinable through the use of physical measurement. ... 3. Free of bias, uncontaminated by by the emotional aspects of personal assessment. 4. adj. External to the body or mind. 5. adj. Sensed or experienced as externally localized. 6. adj. Pertaining to an object, in any of the several meanings of that term. 7. n. A goal; object.
subjective1. adj. Loosely, characteristic of or dependent on an individual, a subject. Embedded in this core meaning of the term are three sub-themes, each reflecting a different sense of the dependency: (a) Private—that which is internal, personal, not available for public scrutiny. ... (b) Mental or cognitive—the subjective is experiential or psychic as opposed to physical or somatic. ... (c) Individual—the subjective is singular, only one person is involved. ... The following, more specialized usages, are commonly found in the social sciences and can be seen as reflecting one or more of these senses of the term. 2. Not directly public, not knowable to anyone else. The sense here is that the fundamental nature of an event can only be experienced internally, privately, and that the experience can never be publicly known but only inferred, e.g., weight is objective, heaviness is subjective; the acoustic waveform of a spoken sentence is objective, the meaning of the sentence is subjective. 3. “not directly verifiable by others, not determinable by the public in any straightforward manner. ... 4. ... unreliable, contaminated by personal, emotional evaluations. This meaning is primarily found as an epithet used against one whose subjective assessments ... differ from one’s own; there is no logical reason why the subjective ought to be less reliable or trustworthy than the objective. Consider the nature of esthetic judgments to appreciate this point. 5. Of judgments made without the use of instruments or other devices. 6. Internal to the body, or, more commonly, to the mind. ... 7. ... sensed or experienced as internally localized; e.g., experiences such as fatigue in which there is no simply determinable external stimulus are regarded as subjective. 8. ... of exeriences based upon illusory or hallucinatory phenomena; imaginary. 9. Personal, pertaining to a single individual, a specific person.

J. P. Chaplin, in Dictionary of Psychology.
objective 1. Existing in fact or in physical reality. 2. Independent of the observer. 3. Outside of the body; in the environment. 4. Pertaining to an object.
subjective 1. Pertaining to or dependent upon a subject ... . 2. Dependent upon individual interpretation, or accessible only to private experience, as opposed to objective, or accessible to public observation. 3. Pertaining to systems or points of view in psychology which make the subject the central fact in psychology. 4. Pertaining to sensory information which originates within the individual, such as pain, fatigue, and organic sensations. 5. Originating in the hallucinatory or illusory processes. 6. Untrustworthy, biased, or unreliable because of the influence of individual differences, prejudices, etc. 7. Pertaining to judgments made without the aid of instruments.

Thus, my statement that that which is objective is independent of opinion does not conflict with the above definitions of objective nor with the definitions of subjective excepts, perhaps, “[r]elating to the real nature of something; essential” in The American Heritage Dictionary, which seems actually to be a definition of objective rather than of subjective.

Thus, if I people/things/events who/which are external and events which are internal accurately, my descriptions become objective, and my definitions operational.

Where introspection (self-reports/individual reports of internal processes) is potentially biased, if we have enough corroborating reports confirming the introspective description then the description becomes objective. This runs the risk of the fallacy of definition by majority opinion in contrast to an operational definition, which, if accurate, is objective and beyond subjectivity and majority opinion. Nevertheless, if enough people agree with the introspective description of internal processes, then the description become an operational definition.

Your words: Observation of behavior patterns can easily produce patterns of approach that could be called evidence of desires, patterns of avoidance which could be called evidence of fears, and patterns of preference which could be called priorities can be confirmed by interviews with you concerning why you approached specific people/things/events, why you avoided specific people/things/events, and why you preferred specific people/things/events and thus eliminate or at least reduce to a tolerable point what you call educated guesses, or conjectures.

When enough information concerning behavior patterns is available, then an individual’s human nature/mind is understood, his motivations are understood, his causality for his actions/reactions is understood, and his resulting behavior can be predicted, and the resulting predicted behavior stands as proof of the understanding of his motivations and causality.

For example, from my observation of college football from having been a backup quarterback, college football scouts can scout/observe opponents and produce highly predictive scouting reports of opponents tendencies for offensive plays and defensive formations and tactics, which are often confirmed by the resulting predicted offensive plays and defensive formations and tactics.

Are we not able to scout individual humans and predict what they will do/not do? At least a little if not a lot?

If so, are our predictions merely educated guesses or more predictive than mere educated guesses?

What would “educated guesses” be? Predictions from observations of behavior patterns?

What about statistics? Do they not provide, in many, though not necessarily all, cases provide reliable predictions of elections? Traffic accidents? Majority opinions from sampling opinions? Mortality rates?

Whether you agree or not, observing people to determine their desires/fears/priorities, their motivations, and their causality is what psychologists/psychiatrists/etc. do when they help people understand themselves.

And the polling of people who have gone to psychologists/psychiatrists/etc. indicates that they report that they HAVE been helped by those psychologists/psychiatrists/etc. who observe their behavior to determine their desires/fears/priorities, their motivations, and who help them reorganize their desires/fears/priorities to help them reorganize their motivations, which indicate that this process of observing people to understand them and help them works.

Your words: If I meant to say hypothesis I would have said hypothesis.

An hypothesis is a description of causality to be proven by (A) physical evidence, (B) eyewitness reports/corroborating reports, and (C) logical arguments.

Objective proof is at least (A) physical evidence, and physical evidence is independent of anyone’s opinion. If fire burns, that is independent of your opinion, and we can prove this by sticking your hand into my woodstove to see if the woodfire burns it.

(B) Eyewitness reports/corroborating reports can be objective, as when observers observe individual behavior and note that when individuals approach people/things/events they tend to report that they approached those people/things/events because they had desires for those people/things/events and when they avoid people/things/events they tend to report that they avoided those people/things/events because they had fears of those people/thing/events. Thus, observers can begin to get an idea of what motivates people by observing their behavior.

(C) Logical arguments can be objective when the premises are verifiable/falsifiable/verified and relevant to the conclusions.

In the sense of showing someone objective proof, if that individual does not choose to accept/believe that physical evidence/eyewitness reports + corroborating reports/logical arguments are convincing, there is a possibility he does so because of personal bias, which is subjectivity, and which, therefore, is not objectivity. This is observable in reference to theists’ clinging to beliefs when shown contrary proof: believing in spite of disproof. Rejecting proof because of personal bias/prejudice/subjectivity does not mean the proof is not objective; instead, this phenomenon only means that the individual who rejects objective proof is illogical/irrational/unreasonable/subjective.

Your words: Yes, I do think that you and every other individual living human being can be modeled mathematically to at least a certain extent.

Do you or do you not have desires--wantings for people/things/events observable objectively as approach behavior?

Either (A) you do or (B) you don’t. Pick one.

Do you or do you not have fears--not-wantings of people/things/events observable objectively as avoidance behavior?

Either (A) you do or (B) you don’t. Pick one.

Do you or do you not have priorities among your desires/fears observable objectively as general and specific choices among people/things/events who/which realize desires/fears/priorities?

Either (A) you do or (B) you don’t. Pick one.

I am not aware of any living being that does not have desires/fears/priorities, and humans are no exceptions. I AM aware that I have desires/fears/priorities, that my feelings are my reactions to my realizations of my desires, and that my feelings develop in a D/R/F Sequence. Many people to whom I have shown these ideas have agreed with them, because they have perceived them to be objective descriptions of subjective reality--operational definitions. And I am confident that other, normal, objective, people will agree that they, too, have desires/fears/priorities, that their feelings are their reactions to their realizations of their desires, and that their feelings develop in a D/R/F Sequence.

I have shown you --
A. That your mind is your personal system of desires/fears/priorities.
B. That your feelings are reactions to realizations of desires/fears/priorities.
C. That feelings develop in a Desire/Realization/Feeling Sequence [D/R/F Sequence]:

   1. Desire: _____ (?) [For a person/thing/event]
   2. Realization: _____ (?) [Person/thing/event achieved/not achieved]
   3. Feeling: _____ (?) [Reaction to the Realization of the Desire]

Thus, you are your desires/fears/priorities.

Your feelings are your reactions to your realizations of your desires.

The bridge/connection between your desires and your feelings are your successes/failures which could be categorized as realizations in the Desire/Realization/Feeling Sequence.

The D/R/F Sequence can be mathematically presented as

SEi = Ri/Di x 100%

Where

SE = Self-Esteem
i = Identification number, i
R = Realization
D = Desire

In words, this means that when you achieve your desires, your happiness varies with the extent of your achievement--with your success; and when you do not achieve your desires, your unhappiness varies with the extent of your non-achievement--your failure.

Do you experience happiness when you achieve your desires?

Either (A) you do or (B) you do not. Pick one.

If you pick (A), does your happiness increase/decrease with your extent/degree of success?

Either (A) it does or (B) it does not. Pick one.

Do you experience unhappiness when you do not achieve your desires?

Either (A) you do or (B) you do not. Pick one.

If you pick (A), does your unhappiness increase/decrease with your extent/degree of failure?

Either (A) it does or (B) it does not. Pick one.

If you agree that (A) your feelings are connected to your desires by means of your realizations, that your feelings are your reactions to your realizations of your desires, then your self-esteem as your moment-to-moment perceptions of your self and your feelings can be expressed mathematically.

SET = (R1/D1 x P1 x 100%) + (R2/D2 x R2 x 100%) + ... + (Pn/Dn x Rn x 100%)

Where:

SET = Self-Esteem Total
R = Realization of a Desire [What you get of what you want]
D = Desire [Wanting a person/thing/event]
P = Priority
n = The last number, n, of a series

These mathematical expressions fit you, they fit me, and they fit every living thing that has a nervous system and experiences happiness/unhappiness.

If these mathematical expressions are not the ultimate/final mathematical expressions for the functioning of the human mind, then they are at least basic to the ultimate/final expressions.

If you still insist that all this is preposterous, then I challenge you to do the following:

1. Define mind
2. Define feelings
3. Describe the relationship between mind and feelings.

If you do this, then you will describing human motivation.

Perhaps you will provide us with new ways of looking at mind and feelings.

By the way, I enjoy writing these essays. I like challenges.

Many of my ideas are original for the field of psychology, and, perhaps, for the field of philosophy.

By original, I mean the following:

   A. Saying something new.
   B. Saying something old in a new way.


I say this because I have done enough research to know that it is true--I have not found these ideas expressed as I have as either new ideas or old ideas expressed in new ways.

If you are not familiar with these ideas, of course you will need time to learn them, work them in your mind to make sense/nonsense of them.

They are objective. I am describing what I see, not what I want to see.

To be not willing to formulate one’s own ideas concerning human nature/motivation/causation means to not be willing to create one’s own complete personal philosophy, for a personal philosophy as one’s personal system of concepts and principles concerning what things/events are, how they work, and what causes them, surely will include concepts and principles describing human nature.

I’ve got mine.

What are yours?

[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited March 27, 2001).]

Holy shit.

As to your multiple choice questions, A for all of them. And "wrong" about your conclusions of my answer. Yes I may have those Feelings/desires/whatever, but they ARE NOT CONSTANT, they CHANGE as I grow. If you used your "mathematical formula" based on my past behavior, then your would think I'm scared to go to the bathroom myself, and that I like to play with green plastic army men.


Dude, what do the terms "establishing" and "demonstrating" and "proving" imply. How can you demonstrate something with only 1 person? Wouldn't a demonstration be something done to gain to convince someone? even yourself? I'll just have to say it again. Until you or anyone believes, you haven't proven anything dude.

There may be evidence on Mars that exists that would prove that we all came from there. But has it been proven? That evidence could be called 'proof' but until it has been observed and measured by man, nothing has been proven. Prove is a verb that represents a conscious action of man to convince you cannot seperate 'to prove' from man, the 2 are conjoined.

Here is a quote from JFK.

"If you can't fit it all onto 1 page, you haven't thought about it enough"

David

dmvprof: I am not aware that SET = (R1/D1 x P1 x 100%) + (R2/D2 x R2 x 100%) + ... + (Pn/Dn x Rn x 100%) is static. It describes an individual at any specific timepoint. As an individual’s R/Realizations changes, the SET changes. You get hungry, your D’s and P’s for eating change--they increase, and other D’s and P’s change--they decrease, and so it goes. But on the whole, there will be averages that provide enough information to enable objective observers to predict, within reason, what you will or will not do. Predicting changes in the stock market averages or what will be NFL football scores may not yet be possible, but there is no reason to conclude that they will never be possible.

By the way, as a point of humor, (A) are you still afraid to go to the bathroom by yourself, and (B) do you still play with green plastic army men?

American Heritage Dictionary.
proof 1. The evidence establishing the validity of a given assertion. 2. Conclusive demonstration of something. 3. The proving of something.

My words: These words are accurate regardless of your opinion. They are thus objective.

Your words; Establishing to me means discovering/determining proof, and THAT can be done by one individual regardless of the opinions of any other individuals. That is what is meant by the phrase objective proof.

Demonstrating means to me discovering/determining physical evidence/eyewitness reports/logical arguments in support of a proposition and showing that physical evidence/etc, to oneself as well as to other individuals, so it is possible to demonstrate proof to oneself and not necessary to demonstrate proof to someone else.

Proving can be discovering/determining physical evidence/etc. for/to oneself and not necessarily others.

In scientific thinking, by the scientific method, one has to offer proof to others so they can replicate it and either verify it or falsify it.

Question: If YOU do not accept a proof but someone else does, does your rejection mean that the proof is not proof, or does it ONLY mean that it is proof to those who accept it?

Your words: I have done some editing (in brackets) to try to paraphrase what I sense you intended to say, and, of course, you are welcome to correct me/rectify my interpretation.

I assert that proof is whatever physical evidence/eyewitness reports/logical arguments an individual discovers/determines but I assert that proof is proof regardless of who accepts it.

We may be quibbling over whether or not physical evidence/etc. offered as proof has to be verified/true before it can be accepted as proof. THE QUESTION concerning the definition of proof may be thus: Is the proof true? THAT may be THE QUESTION you are insisting be answered before you regard any physical evidence/etc. to be proof.

I notice, however, that people tend to use the term proof to refer to any physical evidence/etc. supporting a proposition regardless of whether or not that physical evidence/etc. has been verified. I notice people saying sentences such as “What you offer as proof is not proof!” and “Your proof is not acceptable” as well as “Your proof is acceptable” which, to me, indicates that people are using proof regardless of its verification.

Question: If an individual regards a proof to be false, and he is wrong, because, despite his opinion, the proof is true, is the proof then not proof?

Your words: I like to be thorough. Perhaps that requires more than one page.

What are your definitions of mind and feelings, and what is your description of the relationship between mind and feelings?

And what proof do you offer that supports the validity of your definitions?

[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited March 28, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited March 28, 2001).]

This is kindof silly actually, I think we have diverged and are trying to attribute the same definition of "proof" the noun to "prove" the verb. In that light, everything, every atom in the universe is proof of something. But until someone believes in that proof, nothing is proven. Does that make sense?

PS
Sorry about the quote at the end, shouldn't blame you for my short attention span.

dmvprof:

Your words: I'm still stuck on the idea that in support of an assertion I might be able to offer proof I know to be genuine proof--objective proof--that remains proof regardless of who believes it/does not believe it.

Easy example: Let's say I was a physicist and that I actually created cold fusion--producing more energy than I consumed in a nuclear reaction--but no one else believed me, even when they replicated my experiments and produced cold fusion. My cold fusion would thus be a fact and independent of anyone's opinion of it, and those who did not believe it to be a fact despite their replications are simply wrong, if not illogical/irrational/unreasonable.

Another easy example: Physicists long before the space program proved that the Earth is round--using the fact that the masts of ships appear before the hulls as examples of how the curvature of the Earth produces a curvature of the surface of the oceans, but we still have some people even in times of photos of the Earth from spaceships who reject any proof that the Earth is round and who thus continue to believe the Earth is flat.

Not-so-easy example: The words of the KJV Xn OT are clear in regards to the creation sequences in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 describing who/what came first/second/third:

Gen. 1:25, 26. And God made the beasts of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

[Man made after the beasts. Sequence: Earth-Beasts-Man.]

Gen. 2:18-20. And the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him.” And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam ... but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

[Man made before the beasts. Sequence: Earth-Man-Beasts.]

And if I boil down the KJV words I find the G1 sequence contradicts the G2 sequence:

Genesis 1 sequence: Earth-Animals-Man vs. Genesis 2 sequence: Earth-Man-Animals.

One of my standards for reading/analyzing/evaluating/judging holy books is thus: Words have meanings. If the gods are inspiring/guiding/etc. the writing of holy books, including the Xn Bible, then the words used should have simple and universal meanings and should not require complex interpretations which can only be provided by biblical scholars or priests.

Another of my standards for reading/analyzing/etc. holy books is that the written words should contain no contradictions, for contradictions are proof (A) that gods did not inspire all of a holy book and that at least a part of it was written by mortals; and (B) that holy book is not trustworthy, and its theology/mythology is not to be believed.

Moreover, a contradiction between/among separate accounts of the same people/things/events means (A) one account is true and the other is/others are false or (B) all accounts are false, because the law of contradiction says that an account cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way; and the law of sequence says that between/among accounts describing the same people/things/events a sequence in one account cannot contradict a sequence in another account.

With these standards in mind, I think that by presenting the actual KJV words I have proven that there are two creation sequences, with G1 contradicting G2, thus proving that in Genesis there is at least one contradiction, and that this one contradiction disproves any Xn claim that the gods inspired 100% of the Bible and casts serious doubt upon the trustworthiness of biblical theological/mythological claims.

If someone else does not believe my proof, does that mean I have not proven my case?

It seems to me that if I have proven my case I have proven my case, and those who choose to believe that the G1 sequence of Earth-Animals-Man does not contradict the G2 sequence of Earth-Man-Animals do so in spite of/despite the clear and obvious--objective--proof.

Some people have claimed that the G2 sequence does not contradict the G1 sequence because it--the G2 sequence--is merely an amplification of the G1 sequence. The problem with that explanation is the words describing the G1 sequence clearly contradict the words describing the G2 sequence, hence the claim of contradiction stands, case proven.

Another person claimed that with the gods anything is possible, and so he claimed that both G1/G2 sequences could be true but that the gods have not given us the explanation. The problem with that "explanation" is that even the gods are subject to the same logic as mortals and thus cannot contradict themselves in any of their actions.

Another claim is that the G1 and G2 sequences have to be interpreted by an understanding of Jewish literary devices/culture/etc. and thus those of us mortals not privileged to such an understanding are not qualified to understand much less interpret the G1/G2 sequences, and should be content to accept the interpretations of the scholars/priests who claim such knowledge. This does not work, either, for it violates one of my standards that requires holy books to be inspired or/and written in clear, simple, universal words that normal people [nonscholars/nonpriests] can read and understand using normal/accepted/traditional definitions of those words.

Another claim is that the KJV copyists/translators miscopied/mistranslated the originating manuscripts. That, however, proves that gods were not/are not involved in the copying/translations of holy books, and that, therefore, the gods are most likely not to have been involved in the original writings thereof.

Thus, by standards of reading/analysis/evaluation/judgment given, the proof is the actual words of the KJV of G1 and G2 that reveal a contradiction of the G1 sequence vs. the G2 sequence.

Without standards, or by standards which are illogical/irrational/unreasonable, such as those given by "true believers" and "biblical scholars," anything goes, but at the same time nothing makes sense.

What should be clear and obvious--objective--is that the normal meanings of the words of the KJV describe/reveal two conflicting sequences and thus a contradiction: G1: Earth-Animals-Man vs. G2: Earth-Man-Animals.

Any other interpretation has to be illogical/irrational/unreasonable.

Thus, the contradiction of the G1 creation sequence with the G2 creation sequence is proven and therefore a fact regardless of who believes it.

Thus, genuine proof--objective proof--does not require anyone other than the individual producing the proof to believe it--it stands on its own.

Thus, physical evidence/eyewitness reports/logical arguments can prove objectively an assertion regardless of who believes the proof.

Your words: Without seeing your face or else being able to query you on your precise meaning, I cannot tell if you are saying the opposite of what you mean.

I would hope that by the length of my writings you get the idea that I care about what we have been discussing and that I am trying to be thoughtful and clear in presenting my ideas.

Some people say that "Brevity is the soul of wit" but I have found as a professional entertainer that the Mark Twain/Will Rogers [and perhaps Abraham Lincoln/Davy Crockett] approach of telling stories and thus taking time to present humor/comedy/"wit" works equally well, following someone else's saying of "Funny is funny."

I play piano professionally, and I do humor/comedy/“wit.” I carry a sign that says” Please don’t shoot the piano player--he’s doing the best he can!” and use it to introduce a true story about how a guy pulled a gun on me as I was performing. This story takes 5-10 minutes to tell, but it contains both humor and interesting facts, and people who have heard it have told me that they have enjoyed it.

I ran for Governor here in New Hampshire in 1998, and I take 5-10 minutes to tell a story about what happened when four of us gubernatorial candidates in a forum in a radio station in Nashua, NH, were faced with having to answer a caller who asked this political question: What is the largest organ on a human male’s body? People still share with me their thoughts about that incident, the answer I gave, and the reaction of the caller.

As part of my musical comedy, I explain why it is that the song, “My Wild Irish Rose,” is one of the dirtiest, rottenest, filthiest songs ever written, and singing the song and giving the explanation definitely takes time but definitely brings up a point of humor and interest.

And why it is that I am perhaps up for nomination for being the funniest patient ever to go through the operating room at the Wentworth-Douglas Hospital in Dover, NH, takes time but has its points of humor.

And so it goes.

[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited March 29, 2001).]