Objectivism is not a materialist philosophy

This video defends Objectivism against the charge that it entails materialism.

Link to Dr. Diana Mertz Hsieh's article:

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2004/03/materialism-versus-objectivism.html

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Materialism
• Objectivism
• Philosophy
• Johanan Raatz
• Kevin Stanton

[IoPizzaPlanet]

@Dhorpatan His argument was that immaterialism is required for free-will, not that Objectivism is materialist. AFAIK Objectivism rejects immaterialism as well as materialism.

[TheMessianicManic]

@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?

[shlockofgod]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.