I would rather have pyramids and testing tasks than war… Also sounds similar to the great depression as well. Took on the building spree from society depression.
With this post my whole posts have reached the number “1929”. My point is that the year 1929 was the beginning of a world economic crisis; and if we consider that since the end of the 18th century something like a world economic crisis has been averagely occurring every 70 years, then we can easily calculate when the next world economic crisis after 1929 should have averagely begun: 1999. But 1999 a world economic crisis did not occure, but the Euro was implemented, probably in order to prevent a world economic crisis; howsoever, the next world economic crisis after 1929 began 2007, 78 years after 1929.
The world economic crisis of 1929 was released in the USA by financiers, and the world economic crisis of 2007 was also released in the USA by financiers.
It is the same spiritual reality that built the religions. Spirit is activity, inspiration, motivation. The causes of those things, the ideas, the “angels” are just as real as modern day subatomic particles and more real than Newtonian forces and Quantum Weirdness (both of which are entirely superstition).
This demonstrates the difference between reality and what we think we know about reality. Knowledge is flawed and limited.
If a group of intelligent, educated experts use the best tools available and discover that the Earth is flat, then we say that the Earth is objectively flat. We say that it is an objective scientific fact. We assume that the conclusions of expects closely corresponds to what actually exists. This is knowledge. It is generated by the best minds and using the best tools. It may be wrong. It may be revised in the future. It is the best that we have.
The word ‘objective’ is used both for the mind-independent reality and the mind-dependent interpretation of reality. This leads to no end of confusion.
Even if I was open to the idea that the distance from the Earth to the Sun was determined by consensus and not just observed, I’m not seeing any argument for it coming from Prismatic, just an analogy - “Money is like this, so everything is like this.” I’m not finding the reasoning I’d like to criticize.
I think there’s a difference between calling something a mind-dependant interpretation of reality, and an attempt to describe mind-independant reality which we have to acknowledge has room for error (as a matter of methodology).
What’s the difference? They both amount to saying “I think I saw this happen” or “we think we saw this happen”.
He’s saying that one is a perception issue and the other is a translation into words issue.
But being mind-independent is not dependent upon anyone’s perception or translation of it either.
Money is an excellent abstraction when people don’t want your stuff but you want their stuff, it’s extremely useful. To attach an arbitrary standard to it serves no real purpose. There was an explorer to New Guinee who found out that the villagers used sea shells as currency, so he ordered a WHOLE CRATE of sea shells from England and used it to sleep with every woman in the village. How can you calculate that human needs are exactly based upon the amount of gold in the earth? It’s silly.
As you are perceiving, you are translating into concepts and words in your head.
Additionally, you can’t eat gold or diamonds, just like you can’t eat money… so we should just trade food, but not everyone can eat the same food, so already you run into the problem that currency solves.
Of course there is that Cree Indian Prophesy: “Only when the last tree has been cut down, only when the last river has been poisoned, only when the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money can’t be eaten.”
So money creates variety? There is variety regardless of currencies.
Currency gives us the means to trade when we don’t want other people’s stuff or they don’t want our stuff.
It’s the difference between “I think I saw this” where you turn inward and try to understand what it is about you that provoked you to see it, vs. “This is what we have seen so far” where you take the information at face value and build an incompete view of the world.
Regardless, you are ‘on the money’.
I am using this example of money as an analogy to reality.
Reality -all there is, where objectified is ULTIMATELY inter-subjectivity.
That is basically philosophical anti-reason in one perspective, continental versus analytic philosophy in another, etc.
So it’s just a really long assertion without anything to back it up. OK, well in that vein, I disagree- objectivity isn’t ultimately inter-subjectivity.
OK with that.
There is no real objective distance as how you think it is.
‘Distance’ is a human complex idea arrived from experience. Btw, Hume would have agreed with that. Hume would have said, one see the Sun, one see the Moon and one see a gap between them and name that ‘distance’ and it is recognized intersubjectively via customs and habits.
Scientists then make measurements and verified its consistency [not absolute] of the distance by repeated testing based on the ultimate consensus of the Scientific Method and its framework.
There is no way one can separate ‘events’ and ‘knowledge of events’ in the absolute sense.
As such there is no such thing as absolute distance, i.e. distance-in-itself.
If one were to dig deeper, what distance are we talking about. It is a distance from one specific location on the surface of the Earth and Sun or the distance between the center of each.
The above distance is still not precise, perhaps we need to establish a certain molecule that represent the precise center of the always moving Sun and the Earth.
If the molecule basis is still not precise enough then we try to find the specific quark! that is representative of both Sun and Earth, then we get the most accurate moving distance between the Earth and Sun.
Distance between the specific quark at the center of both bodies is still not nano-precise, so we based on what??? … we end up with nothing 
Bottom line is, there is no mind-independent distance-in-itself to be measured. Whatever the objective distance measured, it is always ultimately inter-subjective and is interdependently emergent.
It is something like what Hilary Putnam put it, i.e. Human < & > Reality ‘create’ 'Reality < & > Human.
Yes, the classification changed based on intersubjective convention, but it is ultimately based on meta-intersubjectivity where the other elements of that dwarf plane is made up. These elements will be individually subject to the in depth investigations I did for ‘distance’ above which end up with ‘nothing.’
Thus whatever the objective parts and the whole dwarf planet called Pluto, it is always ultimately inter-subjective and is interdependently emergent.
Chop wood, carry water.
Experience of what? It wasn’t intersubjective that the Moon was seen, or that the Earth was seen, or that a distance between them was seen, or that instruments read thus-and-so. The only intersubjective part is the units of measurement.
Besides, as long as you’re talking about seeing two objects and their visual relations you aren’t talking about distance anyway, but magnitude.
Magnitude is usually refer to size and quantity.
Perhaps it is the ‘magnitude’ of the distance, i.e. the gap and space between two objects.
The point is there is no way one can separate ‘what is moon’ from ‘the human conditions’.
The experience of the ‘moon’ is personal subjectivity. But because humans have basic generic DNA, the experience of the moon is shared, thus inter-subjective.
If you insist, show me how can there be an absolutely unconditional independent moon that is not conditioned by human conditions.
Btw, I not saying the moon is solely my perception in my brain. I do not agree with solipsism which I know is not tenable in reality.
What I am saying is;
- There is my perception of the moon in my brain and self,
- There is an external moon from my body
- Theoretically, the moon predate humanity.
However all the above objective statements [or it objective states] are conditioned by the human conditions and realized interdependently and intersubjectively.
I mean ‘magnitude’ in the sense you’ll see in optics- the amount of the visual field is taken up. It’s not size because a tiny object close to the eye can have a greater magnitude than a huge object a long way off. Looking at things strictly determines their magnitude only, we infer size and distance, I think through what we learn by sense of touch.
You are needlessly conflating the moon with our experience of it. I'm not sure if you're trying to make a circular argument of have some good argument I haven't seen for this, but they aren't the same thing. We know that the Moon isn't tiny merely because it is small when we look up at it. We know that part of the moon doesn't go away during the crescent and the half. The Moon isn't the distance away that it is because we agree that it is so- before we knew any better, it was that distance (a little closer, to be technical, as it is drifting away bit by bit).
It’s a simple matter to confirm that the Moon is billions of years old. There was a moon before there were any human conditions to condition it.
And there’s that gloss again. Where you attribute something to statements, and then casually attribute the same to the states of affairs the statements describe, as if to say one is to say the other. But they aren’t obviously synonymous. Just because “The Moon is 400,000 miles away” is intersubjective doesn’t mean the Moon being 400,000 miles away is intersubjective. That would be the core of your assertion, and it needs to be argued for since it’s wildly counter intuitive.