Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
1. If you think you did, you did. If you didn't (that is, actually forgot what premesis you were using), you would find yourself not being able to make a conclusion, as you didn't know your premesis (I'm referring to premise-premise-conclusion, the method of logic). You could suddenly have an altered premise, but that would also alter your conclusion, so whatever conclusion you have now would follow.
2. Sense data, as we agreed, does not say anything in and of itself; it's our judgements, and our judgements are arbitrary. So when we got to the moon, we could say of what we sensed "Ah ha, green cheese indeed!" or we could say something else. My point is, there is no reason to suppose that our sense data supports any view we have, as whatever judgement process we have cannot subject itself to itself without assuming itself.
Itself
|
1. You don't understand. What if there is faulty logic in between the premises and the conclusion, in the part of the work that was implanted memory? Or what if (as you say) a premise was suddenly altered, but the work didn't adjust itself to cope with the new data and therefore became invalid? You are assuming that your logic would dynamically adjust itself to handle the alteration but this is simply not the case.
Like this: "Here is a kitten / Kittens are cute / The being in the first premise is cute" is altered to become "Here is a chicken / Kittens are cute / The being in the first premise is cute"
You can never double check sufficiently to correct for this, because every time you turn your back it could be screwed with.
2. As far as I can tell you are proposing that a fantasy world cannot contradict itself beyond reconciliation. I disagree. Basically the dreamer you posit is changing the definitions whenever his senses contradict his worldview, which doesn't count. (Perhaps it might be better to say, it dodges the point that the previous view was in fact contradicted by the senses.)
|
1. The only way logic can be faulty is if something doesn't follow from the two premesis. So, as in the chicken/kitten argument: If your memory of the first premise suddenly changed to "Here is a chicken", then upon your conclusion you'd find that you'd be unable to deduce anything from the two premesis (Here is a chicken / Kittens are cute). If your memory changes to a different premise, then that premise gets incorporated into your conclusion (if it can be incorporated).
2. My point is that there all fanatasy worlds. Concluding that the moon is made of rock is just as much a fantasy as concluding it's cheese. The senses do not contradict worldviews, because they say nothing (a we've agreed before).
