@shlockofgod 4 of several: "bamboozle with quantum quackery."
No I'm not. And you are quite right that it doesn't know anything in advance. That is why it can't possibly possess the properties it has until AFTER the experimenter decides how to measure it. Meaning it's physical properties are dependent on the choice of the experimenter and how he chooses to observe it.
"don't understand"
No I understand it. Zeilinger does too, that's why he thinks the world is a quantum computer.
There are multiple ways to look at physicalism (which I take to be synonymous with materialism): (1) Everything that exists is reducible to the physical, or (2) everything that exists logically supervenes on the physical. All forms of physicalism must at least hold (2). Property dualism for example is compatible with (2), and interactionist forms of property dualism are compatible with free will (much the same way that substance dualism is).
I believe the confusion lies in the fact that objectivism is certainly not idealism, and since many people see idealism and materialism as mutually exclusive, they falsely conclude objectivism must be materialism.
The truth is objectivism allows for both materialism and moderate realism.
That is, anything can exist, but only if it is supported by empirical evidence and/or logic. Unlike idealism's acceptance of baseless realities, such as god and a supernatural realm.
Well that was the issue being discussed. There's a theorem in quantum physics that shows that free-will can't exist if idealism is false. This is an issue because at the moment there are some experiments that strangely enough seem to demonstrate a form of idealism or rather "anti-realism."
"god and a supernatural realm"
This should be good!
watch?v=_cKj3kx4NTY
& the "hacks" in the programming: watch?v=TufKcBa5RaI
(1st video) The overhead of any computer (e.g. data pathways) means the virtual world would have less information than the computer (and far less than the universe containing said computer), so this is not a possible explanation of our universe.
(2nd video) The fabric of space is not a mind, for only adaptive interconnections (e.g. neurons) allow for learning & choice, and our universe's interconnections are fixed (deterministic/probabilistic).
@SimplyObjective 1.) It could be incomplete -look like it has more information than it does, and only render higher pixelation when we zoom in. We use this in computer games all the time, so any conceivable simulation could as well. Bostrom addressed this in his paper.
2.) That's an assumption, since you don't know why neurons are conscious. If they are conscious because they isolate the environment enough for Orch-OR to occur, then the same effect could happen to the universe.
@IoPizzaPlanet 1) I accept your limited rendering explanation (but even this would be so incredible as to be near impossible).
2) Adaptive responses (e.g. thoughts & choices) require 'plasticity', a property that our deterministic/probabilistic universe simply DOES NOT have. In other words, it's immutable laws don't allow it to think or act out of whim.
Note: This issue will be put to rest once AI is created (any complex, adaptive & goal-oriented system is capable of consiousness).
With our computers today it is. Once quantum computers are developed it will be a lot easier though. The processing power and information storage capacity of a quantum computer doubles for every computing molecule added.
"it's immutable laws don't allow it"
Right but we've found that it's only truly immutable laws are the laws of quantum computation, and those laws apply to subjective states as well since the mind is also a quantum computer.
@IoPizzaPlanet " states as well since the mind is also a quantum computer."
You are making stuff up. There's little or no evidence that the mind is even affected by quantum effects. There's certainly no proof that the mind is a "quantum computer".
"that's why objectivity has to start from the mind."
It doesn't. It starts with the consistency of objective reality. There's nothing we can observe that supports the idea that objectivity has to start from the mind.
@IoPizzaPlanet "We need a priori truths that start in the mind to justify if we can even obtain truth from beyond the mind in the first place"
They don't start in the mind. They are derived from the consistency of objective reality. If objective reality was different those priori truths would be different.
@IoPizzaPlanet "Yes, and matter and energy emerges from quantum information"
Even if that were true, so what? It doesn't change the fact that the universe consists of matter and energy. The components of that matter and energy are just an aspect of it. There's certainly no evidence that quantum effects affect consciousness.
"It is meaningless to speak of anything "behind experience..."
I agree, because the phrase "behind experience" is meaningless.
@IoPizzaPlanet "Yes, and with the advent of quantum information theory, we now know that those ways are identical with the consistent ways of qubit processing in a quantum computer"
No we don't. You're just lying. I could just as easily say my PC is "identical" with "those ways".
@DamnedIntrovert That is the difference between what he said and how many view it. You will find many of the people who subscribe to it are in it for their own interests, not for the good of society.
If materialism is great for physics, then why is it not great just as great for the study of consciousness? Is the brain and the means by which it produces consciousness somehow exempt from the same rules that apply to physics?
I thought objectivism was the concept that reality exists outside the mind and independent of it.
Which i thought contradicted dualism, the concept that both the material and the immaterial exist in unison and mind and influence matter.
And since there is a dichotomy between dualism and materialism, wouldn't that mean that for for someone to accept that reality exists independent of the mind, on must accept dualism...
@TheCopaceticMan I was thinking something similar. If consciousness is not a mechanical process, but also not a supernatural entity, then what is it? What alternative exists between those two things?
@Dhorpatan Well I thought you said something like "the natural realm is all space time energy and matter" once, and I know you don't believe in a supernatural realm. So if that's all the natural realm is, and there is no supernatural realm where is there room for anything else?
Also 2 things, -how can a mind be a mode of action if it's a thing? -How can it have free-will without immaterialism?
Who cares what you say, since it has no substance or evidence to it. Your comment was just a childish outburst that deserves nothing but either a block or ignoring.
@Dhorpatan His argument was that immaterialism is required for free-will, not that Objectivism is materialist. AFAIK Objectivism rejects immaterialism as well as materialism.
He(Johanan Raatz) has shown that he thinks Objectivism is materialism. Whether explicitly or implied. Because he is dishonest and ignorant of Obejctivism.
Now, why in the world does free will require immaterialism? That's just silly. Of course it doesn't. That just comes about because Johanan bastardized the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, and it looks like it came about because Kevin Stanton bastardized the Conway-Kochen theorem.
@Dhorpatan I think he did in the past, because he didn't know the Objectivist position, but that wasn't his argument in the recent video. And honestly it LOOKS materialist.
"bastardized the Conway-Kochen theorem."
He didn't. Did you see that link in the video? Either we choose if the eraser expresses a particle or a wave, and thus reality is at some level mind-dependent, OR, the particle knew in advance how it was to be measured. Meaning the experimenter had no free-will.
None of that junk follows from the Conway-Kochen theorem. It only follows for cranks like you, Raatz, Kevin Stanton, and the cranks behind that blog, since you cranks subscribe to the Primacy of Mind. Which is basically the notion that WISHING MAKES IT SO. The Primacy of Mind is subjectivism. And subjectivists make up their own reality. You can't reason with subjectivists for the most part since they are cranks who contradict logic and reality for subjective make believe.
@Dhorpatan Yes it does. How does the particle know how to act beforehand if the experimenters choice is free? Logically it can't.
"And subjectivists make up"
Not if there's a Universal Mind keeping everything in order such that we can't make up our own realities.
"contradict logic and reality"
You call us cranks, yet you have provided zero evidence that matter actually exists. The burden of proof is on the claimant. As an atheist debater you should know this better than anyone.
It's an established scientific fact that matter exists. No encyclopedia like Brittanica, nor Wikipedia, to my awareness, claims matter is not real/doesn't exist.
Only cranks and quacks claim that as far as I'm concerned. Where on the Wikipedia page for matter, does it say MATTER DOESN'T EXIST? You cranks must prove matter doesn't exist; And the Delayed choice quantum eraser does nothing to prove it does not exist. That's just Raatz bastardizing Science as usual.
You are making more unbased statements. Raatz even pointed this out in his last video. A lot of scientists are saying the same thing about matter too. Are they bastardizing science also?
Researching encyclopedias doesn't solve the problem. No one says matter doesn't exist as a something, just that that "something" is an emergent illusion. BTW science can't tell us a substrate exists behind experience. Science doesn't deal with "behind experience."
"Not if there's a Universal Mind keeping everything in order such that we can't make up our own realities."
This doesn't mean reality is not made up, only that you can't make it up. It is still subjective since it is reliant upon a mind, this case being a "super-mind".
"You call us cranks, yet you have provided zero evidence that matter actually exists."
At this point I would ask that you define your terms and tell us what you mean when you say "matter".
@Soupflakez My point was that it would appear the same way to us regardless, so it wouldn't be a problem anymore if it was technically subjective, because it would still be functionally objective. And also some of the structures may have to appear regardless, if based on Platonic components and would remain objective even if in a mind.
I'd define matter as a substance behind experience that is not mental. If any such substance additional to experience exists it would mean dualism.
Well would you then agree that reality is just made up of experiential information like with Whitehead's neutral monism? If "behind experience" means nothing, then the matter that is supposed to be behind our experience doesn't mean anything either and so doesn't exist. So I take it you're agreeing with me?
"functionally objective"
What I'm saying is that it looks the same to us so it doesn't matter if it's actually subjective.
@shlockofgod 5 of several: "then do something special instead of inventing ways the universe"
Please prove that I've done that. Show to me how a subjective state can possibly arise from a non-subjective state. If you don't I will have to assume that either you don't know what you're talking about, that you are a substance dualist, or that you are an eliminativist p-zombie who doesn't think that subjective states even exist.
@IoPizzaPlanet "What I'm saying is that it looks the same to us so it doesn't matter if it's actually subjective."
Well it does matter if you care about what's true. If something is actually subjective then it's subjective despite the fact that it may still have some functionality.
"Functional objectivity" is absurd on its face. If you think the Universe is (in) the mind of God, then you cannot possibly uphold an objective reality in your metaphysics. Your entire idea of objectivity in this case is reduced to triviality. Notice that your idea of objectivity still depends on a mind for perspective...and that reality is still consciousness...therefore? This whole idea is based on some really toxic philosophy.
@Soupflakez 1 of 2 "then you cannot possibly uphold an objective reality in your metaphysics."
So? Something could be "subjective" and still behave as though it's objective for all practical purposes. And it would be impossible to prove otherwise. Anyway, objective reality doesn't only mean "independent of the mind." The laws of physics are reducing to the objective laws of information processing which are the same both in and out of the mind.
@IoPizzaPlane"Anyway, objective reality doesn't only mean "independent of the mind." The laws of physics are reducing to the objective laws of information processing which are the same both in and out of the mind."
They're not. In objective reality, matter and energy behaves in consistent ways. Those laws are derived from that behaviour. The laws are dependant on external reality.
@shlockofgod 6 of several: "In objective reality, matter and energy behaves in consistent ways."
Yes, and with the advent of quantum information theory, we now know that those ways are identical with the consistent ways of qubit processing in a quantum computer.
"Those laws are derived from that behaviour."
Which is why those laws are the laws (QIT) of a quantum computer.
"The laws are dependant on external reality."
Yes those laws are dependent on a reality external to us.
@Soupflakez 2 of 2 "Notice that your idea of objectivity still depends on a mind for perspective..."
Right, that's why objectivity has to start from the mind. Which is why even a purely mentalist metaphysics would still have objectivity though it might be a different kind than the idea of objective reality as a state of mind-independence.
"and that reality is still consciousness..."
Well that would argue for mentalism or something like it.
@verstwo2 Yeah, what with its laissez-faire dogmatism, fascist moral syntax, bias, and hatred of compassion! Fuck Objectivism!!! (Side note: above slander is intended as sarcastic)
This has been flagged as spam show
@shlockofgod 3 of several: "Matter is detected by every human sense, every apparatus and every"
That's not matter, that's sensory information.
"The quantum eraser experiment you cite is performed using matter."
And you know this how?
"My claim that matter exists is the precise opposite of a presupposition."
Then go ahead and give me some evidence that actually matter exists, and that reality isn't just made of sensory impressions or protosensory states.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
Comment removed
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
Comment removed
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet"How does it know to behave ahead of time in the quantum eraser experiment based solely on how the experimenter will observe it....?"
There's no proof that it "knows" anything. You are trying to bamboozle with quantum quackery.
"Is the experimenter's will dependent on the particle or is the particle's behavior dependent on the experimenter's will?"
I don't know if this is a valid question but I'd bet my life that if it IS valid you don't understand it.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@shlockofgod 4 of several: "bamboozle with quantum quackery."
No I'm not. And you are quite right that it doesn't know anything in advance. That is why it can't possibly possess the properties it has until AFTER the experimenter decides how to measure it. Meaning it's physical properties are dependent on the choice of the experimenter and how he chooses to observe it.
"don't understand"
No I understand it. Zeilinger does too, that's why he thinks the world is a quantum computer.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
How does one explain the problem of a Cartesian deceiver?
SPR4GOD 2 months ago
There are multiple ways to look at physicalism (which I take to be synonymous with materialism): (1) Everything that exists is reducible to the physical, or (2) everything that exists logically supervenes on the physical. All forms of physicalism must at least hold (2). Property dualism for example is compatible with (2), and interactionist forms of property dualism are compatible with free will (much the same way that substance dualism is).
xStrelok 2 months ago
I believe the confusion lies in the fact that objectivism is certainly not idealism, and since many people see idealism and materialism as mutually exclusive, they falsely conclude objectivism must be materialism.
The truth is objectivism allows for both materialism and moderate realism.
That is, anything can exist, but only if it is supported by empirical evidence and/or logic. Unlike idealism's acceptance of baseless realities, such as god and a supernatural realm.
SimplyObjective 2 months ago
@SimplyObjective "objectivism is certainly not idealism"
Well that was the issue being discussed. There's a theorem in quantum physics that shows that free-will can't exist if idealism is false. This is an issue because at the moment there are some experiments that strangely enough seem to demonstrate a form of idealism or rather "anti-realism."
"god and a supernatural realm"
This should be good!
watch?v=_cKj3kx4NTY
& the "hacks" in the programming: watch?v=TufKcBa5RaI
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet Thanks for the links.
(1st video) The overhead of any computer (e.g. data pathways) means the virtual world would have less information than the computer (and far less than the universe containing said computer), so this is not a possible explanation of our universe.
(2nd video) The fabric of space is not a mind, for only adaptive interconnections (e.g. neurons) allow for learning & choice, and our universe's interconnections are fixed (deterministic/probabilistic).
SimplyObjective 2 months ago
@SimplyObjective 1.) It could be incomplete -look like it has more information than it does, and only render higher pixelation when we zoom in. We use this in computer games all the time, so any conceivable simulation could as well. Bostrom addressed this in his paper.
2.) That's an assumption, since you don't know why neurons are conscious. If they are conscious because they isolate the environment enough for Orch-OR to occur, then the same effect could happen to the universe.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet 1) I accept your limited rendering explanation (but even this would be so incredible as to be near impossible).
2) Adaptive responses (e.g. thoughts & choices) require 'plasticity', a property that our deterministic/probabilistic universe simply DOES NOT have. In other words, it's immutable laws don't allow it to think or act out of whim.
Note: This issue will be put to rest once AI is created (any complex, adaptive & goal-oriented system is capable of consiousness).
SimplyObjective 2 months ago
@SimplyObjective "near impossible"
With our computers today it is. Once quantum computers are developed it will be a lot easier though. The processing power and information storage capacity of a quantum computer doubles for every computing molecule added.
"it's immutable laws don't allow it"
Right but we've found that it's only truly immutable laws are the laws of quantum computation, and those laws apply to subjective states as well since the mind is also a quantum computer.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet " states as well since the mind is also a quantum computer."
You are making stuff up. There's little or no evidence that the mind is even affected by quantum effects. There's certainly no proof that the mind is a "quantum computer".
"that's why objectivity has to start from the mind."
It doesn't. It starts with the consistency of objective reality. There's nothing we can observe that supports the idea that objectivity has to start from the mind.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@shlockofgod 2 of several: "that objectivity has to start from the mind."
We need a priori truths that start in the mind to justify if we can even obtain truth from beyond the mind in the first place.
"No, it's made of matter and energy. ffs"
Yes, and matter and energy emerges from quantum information. We know this in part because, as you admit here:
"No, because "behind experience""
It is meaningless to speak of anything "behind experience." We have stop at experience.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet "We need a priori truths that start in the mind to justify if we can even obtain truth from beyond the mind in the first place"
They don't start in the mind. They are derived from the consistency of objective reality. If objective reality was different those priori truths would be different.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet "Yes, and matter and energy emerges from quantum information"
Even if that were true, so what? It doesn't change the fact that the universe consists of matter and energy. The components of that matter and energy are just an aspect of it. There's certainly no evidence that quantum effects affect consciousness.
"It is meaningless to speak of anything "behind experience..."
I agree, because the phrase "behind experience" is meaningless.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet "Meaning it's physical properties are dependent on the choice of the experimenter and how he chooses to observe it"
No it doesn't. It's physical properties may be affected by the experimenter in some way but they are not dependant.
"Zeilinger does too, that's why he thinks the world is a quantum computer"
Who cares? Depka Chopra thinks crazy things to. There's no evidence in existence that demonstrates in any way that the world is a "quantum computer".
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet "Show to me how a subjective state can possibly arise from a non-subjective state."
Woman's face exists objectively. Man reacts subjectively to woman's face.
"If you don't I will have to assume that either you don't know what you're talking about.."
If you think you understand quantum physics you don't understand quantum physics. Look in the mirror pal.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet "Yes, and with the advent of quantum information theory, we now know that those ways are identical with the consistent ways of qubit processing in a quantum computer"
No we don't. You're just lying. I could just as easily say my PC is "identical" with "those ways".
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet
"Which is why those laws are the laws (QIT) of a quantum computer."
Why are you bringing up more quantum computer BS? We were talking about the primacy of mind vs primacy of ...
You're not responding to my points but rather using them as a jumping off point to spew more quantum quackery. Stop making shit up.
"Yes those laws are dependent on a reality external to us."
Yes. That's what I said.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
The problem is that objectivism is often USED as such, by people who ARE materialistic.
dangerouslytalented 2 months ago
@dangerouslytalented Implying what? In so much as, what do you believe to be the problem with your outlined explanation?!
DamnedIntrovert 2 months ago
@DamnedIntrovert That is the difference between what he said and how many view it. You will find many of the people who subscribe to it are in it for their own interests, not for the good of society.
dangerouslytalented 2 months ago
@dangerouslytalented Duly clarified :)
DamnedIntrovert 2 months ago
If materialism is great for physics, then why is it not great just as great for the study of consciousness? Is the brain and the means by which it produces consciousness somehow exempt from the same rules that apply to physics?
TheMessianicManic 2 months ago 2
@TheMessianicManic "If materialism is great for physics,"
Well it isn't, at least not anymore. That's what got this whole thing going: watch?v=6xKUass7G8w
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago in playlist Defending and Proving Objectivism 2
I thought objectivism was the concept that reality exists outside the mind and independent of it.
Which i thought contradicted dualism, the concept that both the material and the immaterial exist in unison and mind and influence matter.
And since there is a dichotomy between dualism and materialism, wouldn't that mean that for for someone to accept that reality exists independent of the mind, on must accept dualism...
I guess its all in the link...
TheCopaceticMan 2 months ago 4
@TheCopaceticMan I was thinking something similar. If consciousness is not a mechanical process, but also not a supernatural entity, then what is it? What alternative exists between those two things?
TheMessianicManic 2 months ago 6
@TheMessianicManic "If consciousness is not a mechanical process,"
A mechanical process does not preclude a consciousness with free-will.
Although the term "mechanical process" is a bit is a bit fishy in this context so I may be misunderstanding you.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan Well I thought you said something like "the natural realm is all space time energy and matter" once, and I know you don't believe in a supernatural realm. So if that's all the natural realm is, and there is no supernatural realm where is there room for anything else?
Also 2 things, -how can a mind be a mode of action if it's a thing? -How can it have free-will without immaterialism?
KevinStanton84 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
KevinStanton84 2 months ago
Comment removed
KevinStanton84 2 months ago
Objectivism sucks. Period. Philosophical masterbation at it's finest.
verstwo2 2 months ago
@verstwo2
Who cares what you say, since it has no substance or evidence to it. Your comment was just a childish outburst that deserves nothing but either a block or ignoring.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan His argument was that immaterialism is required for free-will, not that Objectivism is materialist. AFAIK Objectivism rejects immaterialism as well as materialism.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago in playlist Defending and Proving Objectivism 9
@IoPizzaPlanet
He(Johanan Raatz) has shown that he thinks Objectivism is materialism. Whether explicitly or implied. Because he is dishonest and ignorant of Obejctivism.
Now, why in the world does free will require immaterialism? That's just silly. Of course it doesn't. That just comes about because Johanan bastardized the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, and it looks like it came about because Kevin Stanton bastardized the Conway-Kochen theorem.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan I think he did in the past, because he didn't know the Objectivist position, but that wasn't his argument in the recent video. And honestly it LOOKS materialist.
"bastardized the Conway-Kochen theorem."
He didn't. Did you see that link in the video? Either we choose if the eraser expresses a particle or a wave, and thus reality is at some level mind-dependent, OR, the particle knew in advance how it was to be measured. Meaning the experimenter had no free-will.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago 2
@IoPizzaPlanet
None of that junk follows from the Conway-Kochen theorem. It only follows for cranks like you, Raatz, Kevin Stanton, and the cranks behind that blog, since you cranks subscribe to the Primacy of Mind. Which is basically the notion that WISHING MAKES IT SO. The Primacy of Mind is subjectivism. And subjectivists make up their own reality. You can't reason with subjectivists for the most part since they are cranks who contradict logic and reality for subjective make believe.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan Yes it does. How does the particle know how to act beforehand if the experimenters choice is free? Logically it can't.
"And subjectivists make up"
Not if there's a Universal Mind keeping everything in order such that we can't make up our own realities.
"contradict logic and reality"
You call us cranks, yet you have provided zero evidence that matter actually exists. The burden of proof is on the claimant. As an atheist debater you should know this better than anyone.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet
It's an established scientific fact that matter exists. No encyclopedia like Brittanica, nor Wikipedia, to my awareness, claims matter is not real/doesn't exist.
Only cranks and quacks claim that as far as I'm concerned. Where on the Wikipedia page for matter, does it say MATTER DOESN'T EXIST? You cranks must prove matter doesn't exist; And the Delayed choice quantum eraser does nothing to prove it does not exist. That's just Raatz bastardizing Science as usual.
Dhorpatan 2 months ago
@Dhorpatan "bastardizing Science"
You are making more unbased statements. Raatz even pointed this out in his last video. A lot of scientists are saying the same thing about matter too. Are they bastardizing science also?
Researching encyclopedias doesn't solve the problem. No one says matter doesn't exist as a something, just that that "something" is an emergent illusion. BTW science can't tell us a substrate exists behind experience. Science doesn't deal with "behind experience."
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IoPizzaPlanet Raatz "even pointed this out in his last video."
You can't claim videos exist and then claim there's no proof of matter. Videos depend on matter to exist.
"A lot of scientists are saying the same thing about matter too."
No they're not. There is a massive overwhelming scientific consensus that matter exists.
"No one says matter doesn't exist as a something, just that that "something" is an emergent illusion."
Matter would not then be an illusion of any kind.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet
"Not if there's a Universal Mind keeping everything in order such that we can't make up our own realities."
This doesn't mean reality is not made up, only that you can't make it up. It is still subjective since it is reliant upon a mind, this case being a "super-mind".
"You call us cranks, yet you have provided zero evidence that matter actually exists."
At this point I would ask that you define your terms and tell us what you mean when you say "matter".
Soupflakez 2 months ago
@Soupflakez My point was that it would appear the same way to us regardless, so it wouldn't be a problem anymore if it was technically subjective, because it would still be functionally objective. And also some of the structures may have to appear regardless, if based on Platonic components and would remain objective even if in a mind.
I'd define matter as a substance behind experience that is not mental. If any such substance additional to experience exists it would mean dualism.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet "I'd define matter as a substance behind experience that is not mental."
"Behind experience" doesn't mean anything.
"because it would still be functionally objective"
There's no such thing as "functionally objective". It's just made-up nonsense.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@shlockofgod 2 of 2: ""doesn't mean anything"
Well would you then agree that reality is just made up of experiential information like with Whitehead's neutral monism? If "behind experience" means nothing, then the matter that is supposed to be behind our experience doesn't mean anything either and so doesn't exist. So I take it you're agreeing with me?
"functionally objective"
What I'm saying is that it looks the same to us so it doesn't matter if it's actually subjective.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet "Well would you then agree that reality is just made up of experiential information..."
No, it's made of matter and energy. ffs
"...like with Whitehead's neutral monism?"
If you want to feel special then do something special instead of inventing ways the universe has made you special.
"...matter that is supposed to be behind our experience doesn't mean anything either and so doesn't exist"
No, because "behind experience" doesn't mean anything to begin with.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@shlockofgod 5 of several: "then do something special instead of inventing ways the universe"
Please prove that I've done that. Show to me how a subjective state can possibly arise from a non-subjective state. If you don't I will have to assume that either you don't know what you're talking about, that you are a substance dualist, or that you are an eliminativist p-zombie who doesn't think that subjective states even exist.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet "What I'm saying is that it looks the same to us so it doesn't matter if it's actually subjective."
Well it does matter if you care about what's true. If something is actually subjective then it's subjective despite the fact that it may still have some functionality.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shlockofgod Just because something is subjective doesn't make it untrue. Truth statements can still be made about subjective states.
"There's little or no evidence that the mind is even affected by quantum effects."
Wrong: watch?v=f477FnTe1M0 watch?v=crzgOuUtvrg
"There's certainly no proof that the mind is a "quantum computer"."
And more wrong: watch?v=VQngptkPYE8
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlanet
"Functional objectivity" is absurd on its face. If you think the Universe is (in) the mind of God, then you cannot possibly uphold an objective reality in your metaphysics. Your entire idea of objectivity in this case is reduced to triviality. Notice that your idea of objectivity still depends on a mind for perspective...and that reality is still consciousness...therefore? This whole idea is based on some really toxic philosophy.
Soupflakez 2 months ago
@Soupflakez 1 of 2 "then you cannot possibly uphold an objective reality in your metaphysics."
So? Something could be "subjective" and still behave as though it's objective for all practical purposes. And it would be impossible to prove otherwise. Anyway, objective reality doesn't only mean "independent of the mind." The laws of physics are reducing to the objective laws of information processing which are the same both in and out of the mind.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@IoPizzaPlane"Anyway, objective reality doesn't only mean "independent of the mind." The laws of physics are reducing to the objective laws of information processing which are the same both in and out of the mind."
They're not. In objective reality, matter and energy behaves in consistent ways. Those laws are derived from that behaviour. The laws are dependant on external reality.
shlockofgod 2 months ago
@shlockofgod 6 of several: "In objective reality, matter and energy behaves in consistent ways."
Yes, and with the advent of quantum information theory, we now know that those ways are identical with the consistent ways of qubit processing in a quantum computer.
"Those laws are derived from that behaviour."
Which is why those laws are the laws (QIT) of a quantum computer.
"The laws are dependant on external reality."
Yes those laws are dependent on a reality external to us.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@Soupflakez 2 of 2 "Notice that your idea of objectivity still depends on a mind for perspective..."
Right, that's why objectivity has to start from the mind. Which is why even a purely mentalist metaphysics would still have objectivity though it might be a different kind than the idea of objective reality as a state of mind-independence.
"and that reality is still consciousness..."
Well that would argue for mentalism or something like it.
IoPizzaPlanet 2 months ago
@verstwo2 Yeah, what with its laissez-faire dogmatism, fascist moral syntax, bias, and hatred of compassion! Fuck Objectivism!!! (Side note: above slander is intended as sarcastic)
MrDarknessandDeath 2 months ago 2