Are Only Physical Things Objective?

Questions about Objectivism
21

I don’t think there’s any sense in which the physical basis of thoughts is meaningless, but you are entirely correct that it’s not important. I generally hesitate to mention the “computer program” analogy because people often cannot get the fact this doesn’t mean I’m saying that the brain is a computer, but the physical basis of computer programs is a quite apt analogy.

It would not make much sense to ‘study’ software by studying media. Optical media would be so different than magnetic yet the software is the same. Maybe ‘irrelevant’ is a better word.

In any case, the far end of ‘not important’ is ‘meaningless’.

22

In any case, the far end of ‘not important’ is ‘meaningless’.

No, that far end would be “pointless”, i.e. “having no (rational) point or goal”. If something is “meaningless”, then it doesn’t refer to anything (recalling that the meaning of a concept is its units). The meaning of “physical basis of thoughts” is, then whatever that basis is – a hodegpodge of brain goo, chemicals, electrical fields, and whatever else there is. Lacking meaning and lacking purpose are not the same thing. I agree that “irrelevant” or “pointless” is a correct description.