29 Oct 10
Originally posted by FabianFnaspluto is a planet. i don't agree with the modern definition. we have 10 planets in the solar system and that is that.
Pluto is not a planet. If it is then it is many more, hundreds of them sharing the properties of Pluto. So the former definition of a planet was defective and obsolete with the new findings. Pluto is not a planet. Today we have 8 known planets according to the modern definition.
29 Oct 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt’s more than a definition because all we have is our knowledge, and our knowledge is created solely on the basis of an experimental world -and one can get to know strictly by means of one’s experiences. Therefore, knowledge is merely a map (an invention) of the individual regarding the various issues s/he encounters, and as such it is not something that “exists objectively as an external phenomenon out there waiting to be discovered”. How could it ever be otherwise, since the observer universe and all the observers within it do not exist independent of us people?
i don't think you really understand what subjective means. you keep klinging to your incorrect definition.
subjectivity isn't registering reality with your senses. like i said countless times before, if that were the case why would we need objective/subjective notions. furthermore why would you need a term to designate such a broad spectrum of subtleties ...[text shortened]... your definition, everything following is perfectly logical. i don't accept your definition.
We are simply making reality by interpreting the world; our tools are our products of the World 3, and all of them are nothing but a conceptual way (a mapping) of ours -and we are using them in order to become able to understand and to interpret the World 1. Again, these tools are not separate entities of an objective world but concepts of ours, concepts that due time they were used so fervently by us for the construction of our own reality that they finally became to our eyes seemingly solid. However, all these seemingly “solid” concepts are derivative from our consciousness alone, therefore I regard them just as a collective illusion based on an impermanent stability that gives them the appearance of immutability.
Mind you, I don’t claim that our everyday -our “objective world”- does not exist. I argue that we cannot know for sure (objectively) based on our experiences -we can know solely subjectively. Of course we can make useful predictions about the known world by using effectively our tools (our functional, viable and non-false for the time being scientific theories and concepts that they are evolving constantly and assist us in our struggle to explain our world). Methinks we can do useful predictions because, thanks to our pure subjectivity that helped us to construct an undeniable reality herenow, we brought up a consensus (regarding this undeniable reality) that it is accepted by all of us -by all the (subjective) individuals, that is
😵
29 Oct 10
Originally posted by black beetleyeh i think we are done here. you continue to define subjectivity in such a way as to include "everything that is". as long as you cling to this illogical notion, i cannot bring to the discussion anything new.
It’s more than a definition because all we have is our knowledge, and our knowledge is created solely on the basis of an experimental world -and one can get to know strictly by means of one’s experiences. Therefore, knowledge is merely a map (an invention) of the individual regarding the various issues s/he encounters, and as such it is not something th ...[text shortened]... able reality) that it is accepted by all of us -by all the (subjective) individuals, that is
😵
it was fun though.
29 Oct 10
Originally posted by FabianFnaswho cares. it is just a definition. it simply is annoying that maxwell, faraday, copernicus to name but a few made real contributions to science. useful contribution. and some dudes simply says pluto is not adequate. it is the same as the definition of a continent, has more cultural than scientific definition
Eris is only one of the objects. There are three more Plutoids. Should we count them as planets too?
(Do you like the old obsolete definition of a planet or the new modern current one?)
29 Oct 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd this unknown object that we know (near to) nothing about you count as the tenth planet?
i vaguely remember a rumor about a planet on a large orbit of about several hundred years.
Pluto is definitely not a planet. But - it has given its name to a completely new group of objects - Plutoids.
29 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziWho cares? Astronomers care!
who cares. it is just a definition. it simply is annoying that maxwell, faraday, copernicus to name but a few made real contributions to science. useful contribution. and some dudes simply says pluto is not adequate. it is the same as the definition of a continent, has more cultural than scientific definition
No amatures, no astrologers, no pseudo-scientists can call any body a planet anymore. A planet is nowadays (since 2006) well defined as such, and the rest just aren't.
29 Oct 10
Originally posted by menace71It's a matter of conditioning to such the lies and their -influences- already to the consciousness. Not that they are without faith, rather developed with such input, erroneous influential input, that sickness is a possible fact that one can become such.
Agreed most people profess crazy beliefs but if put to the test they really don"t believe what they are saying. Like faith healers or whatever. They say sickness is because others don't have faith enough. Yet they have ailments and sickness so what's wrong with their faith?
Manny
29 Oct 10
Originally posted by Zahlanzi>>>how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time?<<<
dude, you cannot say that objectivity to you is an illusion if you do not speak of the same concept as i do. and objectivity as you described it can never be attained. just because you need an observer to make observations doesn't mean that reality is subjective. we go back to the use of language. using the same word to designate 2 different concepts is wor ...[text shortened]... PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
They ARE deceived, deceived by what appears to be, but is not, it's all mental, therefore all our senses, under an INfluece to be of what is called "matter" is -only- this captivity of one being separately aware they are only spiritual.
The "realm" man lives in known to be what is called "material" is all due to the fall of man as referred in the Holy Bible with Adam, man's captivity to it's subtle erroneous conceptions and all their inventions, influences.
29 Oct 10
Originally posted by Zahlanzi>>>this is similar as the "pluto is not a planet" debate. someone once defined planets in a certain way. then a dude came and decided a new category should be defined, and that pluto belongs to it. theoretically i can invent any definitions. i can say that a planet must be blue. therefore jupiter is not a planet. however you might have an objection to my definition. everything you say is logical. you define objectivity as something that can never be achieved. and subjective as everything else. if one accept your definition, everything following is perfectly logical.<<<
i don't think you really understand what subjective means. you keep klinging to your incorrect definition.
subjectivity isn't registering reality with your senses. like i said countless times before, if that were the case why would we need objective/subjective notions. furthermore why would you need a term to designate such a broad spectrum of subtleties ...[text shortened]... your definition, everything following is perfectly logical. i don't accept your definition.
exActly!