Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:
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).

1.  Well, the example is necessarily very short, but I'm thinking of doing more lengthy thinking.  With a long problem you rely on your memory to hold information about what you've taken from the premises and deduced into new premises.  For instance, if you have two sets of premises that you work on separately and later combine the results to solve the problem.  You are presuming that you will go back and double check to see that you haven't made any mistakes (or had any made for you).  But no matter how many times you check, if your memory is untrustable there is ALWAYS the possibility of something being missing/wrong. 

2.  But the just because the senses don't prove anything absolutely doesn't mean they don't prove anything relatively, as in "assuming the senses are accurate then this is wrong".  So any worldview that includes the position that the senses are accurate could have its validity challenged by contradictory sensory input. 

If I have the idea that my perceptions are roughly accurate, and that a rock is as I percieve a rock and cheese is as I percieve cheese (and that they are very different), and that the moon is made of cheese, and I percieve that the moon is made of what I percieve to be as rock, then part of my worldview (either my definition of cheese or my view of what the moon is made of or my view of the accuracy of my senses) is wrong. 

This is why we do NOT agree here.  Just because senses can't ABSOLUTELY PROVE that a worldview is the true really for real truth, that doesn't mean that they can't prove that a worldview is not consistent with sensory data.  (This is what I mean by senses "contradicting" a worldview:  to say that something else is the case.  That doesn't necessarily mean that the senses win the disagreement.)  And, if part of the worldview is that sensory data will agree with the worldview, thus contradict itself.  Your position (in the final sentence) is only true of a worldview that gives no credence to sensory data.