12 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-04-03 0005 +cabadejo

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-04-03 0005 +cabadejo
https://plus.google.com/108131621397475586556/posts/5dB5337MBqh
https://pastebin.com/pfdq9vDe
__


+cabadejo __ (I ended up writing a fair bit - oh well that's nothing new - it all needs to be written down.)

__

I am replying but have only read the first paragraph and must stop you immediately when you wrote: *"the idea of sufficient proof is actually a subjective thing. What is sufficient to one is not sufficient proof to another".*

It is *not* subjective and you have equivocated with the word "sufficient". The term "sufficient proof" and thus the word "sufficient" has a *specialised meaning* and *must not* be used as in _"Have you had a *sufficient* amount to eat?"_ or _"Do we have a *sufficient* amount of booze to get smashed tonight?"_ (And so on.)

__

Sufficient proof is wholly *objective.* It is true for everyone. It is that which *necessarily proves* an event or claim to be true and real. (The "necessarily proves" is what removes it from a state of being "subjective".)

For example - "sufficient proof" with regard to the claim made by "Anthony B" that "Stefan Molyneux" is also "Jeff C" would be to *see a genuine image of "Jeff C" that is a match for "Stefan Molyneux".*

(Anthony B has either not understood what it means to prove a claim allowing a person to say that two people *are definitely* the same or has intentionally misunderstood. Either way I can no longer trust him at his word and all any of us have are our word.)

Nothing else can 100% prove it. Sure - if you are comparing two voices of people who are *not disguising their voices* - then a so-called "voice fingerprint" can be useful and could be used to establish (to some level of confidence) whether two different voices are from the same person.

But the claim made by Anthony B is not obvious or intuitive. If Anthony B's claim is true then it is the case that one or both of the characters has disguised their voice and so a "voice fingerprint" could never be 100% which is what we need to "know with certainty". (I.e., *certainty* - the same level of the accuracy that "sufficient proof" gives us - which permits us to *justify* our belief - without justification it remains at best a "shadow belief".)

(Some in Anthony B's camp want us to believe that "voice fingerprints" are used to identify two people as being "one and the same" but they do not mention that it is typically when the two samples come from people who aren't disguising their voices and that there are other factors getting in the way of a match such as the sound of traffic or the ambient noise of a busy brothel.)

"Sufficient proof" for the shape of the Earth requires seeing a photo of the Earth from space that shows us the entirety of the Earth's shape that is distinguishable from CGI (in the absence of being personally far enough away).

"Sufficient proof" for the claim that someone else interviewed the grey haired and silver tongued woman with the autistic kid would be to have footage of the interview where we saw or heard an interviewer (that *could* exist somewhere, right?).

__

On that note - to show how stupid Anthony B is being - imagine if I had said "the woman interviewed herself - it's a lock - prove me wrong" (and demanded that you find the video with an interviewer).

It's as absurd as "Peekay" claiming alleged "astronaut" "Tim Peake" was using a blue grid for green screen and demanding that you find him the original video otherwise he can continue to insist it's for green screen (despite knowing about another video using the same blue grid for innocuous purposes).

_And so on and so forth._

__

"Sufficient proof" is "that which necessarily proves an event or claim to be true and real".

This *cannot* (and must never) be subjective or thought of as subjective.

If anything you have made me realise a need to qualify the definition! Tentatively I'll do so as follows:

__

>> Sufficient proof is that which necessarily proves an event or claim to be true and real *as accepted by honest and intelligent people*. <<

__

(That is a tentative revision since I am writing this on the fly - there may be a better way to encapsulate that notion - for now it is just an acknowledgement of the need.)

The reason for adding the part about honest and intelligent people (to be even more pedantic a "majority of such people of sound judgment") is because dishonest people cannot be expected to play fair and stupid people cannot be expected to recognise sufficient proof even when it is mashed up in their potato and shoved down their worthless throats.

__

I'll finish reading what you wrote and add another reply.

*It is important to understand that "sufficient proof" is a SPECIAL TERM in relation to the lie system - it is not something "disputable" [between people] and it is not something "subjective"*.

"Sufficient" in "sufficient proof" *must not* be thought of as the plain dictionary definition of "sufficient".

_And it must never be written in that way!_

In the same way a "shadow belief" is a special term and does not refer to some kind of "shadow cast by light". _That would also be an equivocation!_

If what you are presented with *is* genuinely subjective *then it should not be considered sufficient proof*.

"Sufficient proof" is really the "simplest way to answer the question: how do I know with certainty that this claim is true and real?" (It would be literally the "Occam's Razor" of "proof".)

Maybe that can catch on: *"Sufficient proof is the Occam's Razor of proof for proving a claim".* I like it - _I think I'll tweet it._

(Where it might be "subjective" would be that a photo is or is not *distinguishable* from CGI - that could be subjective - but that should not be an issue with "good, honest and intelligent people of sound judgment" - for they alone will be able to make the correct determination [for if not them - then whom?!]. Stupid people typically lack sound judgment and the mentally ill - _as I have come to discover_ - have a whole lot of "unique" problems.)





__________________________________________
Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's posts, comments, videos and discussions:
https://pastebin.com/Bfr5RMSg

Here is Lesta Nediam's Google Plus posts (i.e., blog) - this is where Lesta is most active:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Here is an annotated text file with links to all of Lesta Nediam's video uploads:
https://pastebin.com/WV42jUb1

Here is Lesta Nediam's YouTube channel - for videos about the lie system:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w