defining the Polycorn

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

defining the Polycorn

Post by Kuznetzova »

The Polycorn is a special type of unicorn. It is special in that I get to define all of its properties from the initial outset of the conversation. Since I am defining the Polycorn myself, you have no space to disagree with my definitions. You must operate logically within the tight boundaries of the Polycorn's enumerated properties. If you do not do so, I will accuse you of being "dogmatic" and "ignorant", and then tell you that I am "reporting your posts" to the moderators. Isn't that clever? I thought it was! 8)

So let's define this thing.
  • The Polycorn is non-physical.
  • The Polycorn's direct phenomenal effects cannot be measured physically.
  • The Polycorn has phenomenal effects on regular physical matter and energy around us, but these residual side-effects cannot be "quantified by science".
  • Science cannot form a theory of the Polycorn, ever.
  • The Polycorn exists.
  • You must believe the Polycorn exists.
Make sure you don't post in this thread without first confessing your unbending belief in the Polycorn's existence. Otherwise I will report your dogmatism to the moderators. Okay. Have a nice day everyone! :wink:
Impenitent
Posts: 3340
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: defining the Polycorn

Post by Impenitent »

my parrot died from blisters on his talons

-Imp
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: defining the Polycorn

Post by Ginkgo »

Kuznetzova wrote:

So let's define this thing.
  • The Polycorn is non-physical.
  • The Polycorn's direct phenomenal effects cannot be measured physically.
  • The Polycorn has phenomenal effects on regular physical matter and energy around us, but these residual side-effects cannot be "quantified by science".
  • Science cannot form a theory of the Polycorn, ever.
  • The Polycorn exists.
  • You must believe the Polycorn exists.
Actually this is quite good, because it highlights an important distinction. The only thing I would change is the last dot point "You must believe" to "You cannot deny the logical structure".

You begin with the apriori assumption that the "Polycorn" exists. In other words,we are making an assumption about an assumed cause for the way the world is. Furthermore,if we understand the nature of the "Polycorn" then we intuitively understand the claims being made about the "Polycorn". One possible way of demonstrate this is though the use of a tautology:

Reality is such that you can have a "Polycorn" and the "Polycorn" explains reality.

The thing is we don't need the scientific method to demonstrate the existence of the "Polycorn". In fact, even if we wanted to use the scientific method to demonstrate the working of the "Polycorn" in the world, it would be impossible. The "Polycorn" is non-falsifiable and not demonstrable. It is a metaphysical claim to reality. To try and prove this metaphysical claim to reality is science, is to do nothing more than create pseudo-science.


I think you have done a good job with this Kuz.
User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: defining the Polycorn

Post by Kuznetzova »

I guess what I need to do now is continually complain about how limited science is, and how science makes all these limiting assumptions. Then I should insult other forum users about their "ignorance" of the assumptions that science makes. Ya know something like: "...Do you believe science can explain the polycorn, you ignoramus? Do you? Answer my question or I will report you to the moderators..." (,or something along those lines.)

I predict that if I keep that going, I can create a thread that rivals the 24-page trollbaiting extravaganza of skakos.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=10635
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: defining the Polycorn

Post by Wyman »

I experienced the same frustration recently when I decided to read Chalmers' 'The Character of Consciousness' recently. As I read the first few chapters, I kept feeling that he was assuming everything about 'consciousness' which he was obviously trying to argue for. Finally, a few chapters in, he says:

'At a certain point, the debate between type-A materialists and their opponents usually comes down to intuition: most centrally, the intuition that consciousness (in a nonfunctionally defined sense) exists or that there is a something that needs to be explained (over and above explaining the functions). This claim does not gain its support from argument but from a sort of observation along with rebuttal of counterarguments.

So, after putting forth many unconvincing arguments which all seem to assume that which is to be proven (that consciousness is non-physical yet exists, is inexplicable in physical terms, etc.), he comes right out and admits that it is not about arguments at all, but about an intuition which you either have or don't have. Blah
Post Reply