That was not my question. I asked why do you place higher certainty on your perception than your memory, not which one is more useful.
No. You questioned the difference. I don't place so much certainty on my perception. It's quite irrelevant anyway.
No, these were my exact words: "Why do you place a higher certainty on your perception than on your memory? Why would you make a distinction?" And now I have to ask why questioning your perception is irrelevant but questioning your memory isn't.
What rot. Faith of all sorts is tested and rejected all the time. I think you're trying to build a strawman to fit what I assume are preconceptions about religion.
No, I'm not building a strawman. Before embarking on the reply, as a non-english speaker, I did a "define:faith" in google, just to be sure of the meaning. First meaning I got: "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something". If that's not the same, I apologize. But that's irrelevant. You are extending the definition of "faith" to cover each of the contradictory hypotheses that I assumed. Did I have "faith" in that memory is completely unreliable when I made that assumption, and then changed my "faith" when I assumed the contrary? If you answer "yes": well, great, I had "faith" then, but only after you twisted the meaning beyond recognition.
If I assume that my senses and memory are worth anything, I arrive to a set of conclusions. If I assume the contrary, I arrive to another set of conclusions.
Even to argue like this requires a faith ("assumption" about some aspect of reality without evidence) in your memory.
Let me get this straight. Assuming that something is true in order to advance an argument requires "faith" in that something?. Ok. Twisted meaning of faith. I also have faith in the axioms of euclidean geometry, and sometimes I even have faith in the axioms of non-euclidean geometries, because I assume them to be true when I do geometry.
It just happens that one of those sets of conclusions is empty.
It's not empty. It just means that you perhaps can't define life and reason and science in the way you may want.
"in the way I may want"? No, it means that if I assume that memory is absolutely unreliable, I'm not even able to think, because by the time I finish a thought, the previous one is already in the past, i.e, a memory. Even the assumption that memories are wrong are just a memory by the time that you start thinking about the consequences. "I'm assuming that all my memories are wrong. Given that... oh, wait, I remember that all my memories are wrong. Including this one. So I'll assume that all my memories are wrong. What I was doing? Oh, yes, trying to get to any conclusion under the assumption that all my memories are wrong. But that is a memory. So it is wrong. Why is it wrong? Ah, because I assumed that memory is wrong. Gah, I just remembered that. Invalid. Why?...".
and now I'm considering the other assumption, which I haven't finished exploring.
Recalling that you must assume that your memory is reliable in order to be able to rationally consider whether it is reliable.
Recalling that when? While I'm doing my reasoning? Well, yes, I recall "I'm assuming that my memory is reliable". But that's just my assumption, so there is no contradiction there. To think about the consequences of the assumption that memory is reliable I must assume that memory is reliable. Duh. To think derive any arithmetic result, I must assume the axioms. There is no circular thinking there. I'm not concluding my assumptions in either case.
What's more, I'm betting you're going to spend the majority of your life assuming it despite a total lack of evidence - i.e. faith.
That's ridiculous. Do you spend your whole life asking you this question (every time you access one of your memories), having the discussion in your mind, and concluding that you have faith? I doubt it, you wouldn't be able to do anything else. You just don't ask the question with every recall. Me neither. When for some reason I ask the question, I get my answer (or non-answer) and that's it. Just like I don't ask "am I really seeing this, or is this just an illusion?" every time light enters my eyes.
Usefulness is not a measure of truth.
When did I say it was?
"decision... on the basis of which one is more useful."
Why so arbitrary?
What does it matter if is arbitrary or not to whether I said if is true or not? I didn't say is a measure of truth. Even if I was arbitrary, I still didn't say that is a measure of truth. Why change the question?
Feel free to construct an scenario in which the competing answers to your question lead to observably different results.
I don't see why one has to be in the position of constructing an experiment in order to usefully ask a question. It's a stupid argument which could have been used (and, indeed, has been used) to defeat all sorts of hypotheses which later experimentation has revealed to be true.
Nope. I said that the question was irrelevant because the answers lead to any observable difference. You replied that given enough time, all questions are irrelevant under my definition ("Given enough time, whatever humans do, I don't think the universe will be observably different."). Well, construct any scenario, in any time scale, in which there is an observable difference. If there is no scenario in which there is a difference, then the question is irrelevant. I just made things easier for you.
Let me simplify this for you. I "observe" (for some definition of "observe") my memory (whatever that is),
Not good enough. How do you observe it? What is it exactly that you're observing?
The figment of my imagination that claims to be a memory. The little devil whispering in my ear, "I am a memory". Whatever you want to define memory. Your question never was whether memory exists or not, it was whether you can trust it or not. Your question pre-supposes that there is something that we call memory /and/ that we can access it. If you are now changing the question, then... I'm not playing any more. Be honest.
and perceive it to be (sufficiently) accurate.
How do you perceive that without relying on your memory? If you mean that right this moment you see no inconsistencies, that could just be because you've forgotten them.
Thus perceiving it as sufficiently accurate.
But if it doesn't have an answer, it is not worth answering... because, you know, doesn't have an answer.
Imagine that some high school student asks you:
How can I find out whether a general algorithm halts?
What do you tell them?
I don't know, what do you tell him? And what does that question has to do with this discussion? You seem to be confusing a question with indistinguishable answers, with an insufficiently specified question. The first ones are useless. For the second ones, you just have to specify them better.
Your position, instead, is that you have to ask it, give it an arbitrary answer ("memory is reliable"), and claim that answering it is an act of "faith".
You're not very good at reading. Firstly, I didn't say that it had to be asked - I merely asked it.
Right... I think that's called "nit picking". You asked, but the answer that the question itself is flawed made you keep demanding an answer, that has to match yours. Right.
Secondly, I merely indicated that, if you were to assume your memory is reliable (which I do - but you are welcome not to) then you do so as an act of faith.
I've been through this many times now. No more. If you claim that assumption is 100% synonymous with faith, go ahead.
I know it's true. You know it's true but you don't want to come out and acknowledge it, which is why you presented me with a No True Scotsman fallacy in which you attached conditions to distinguish faith from True Faith.
Oh, please, tell me where I used the No True Scotsman, or how I even spoke of "True Faith", whatever that is. It is you who is twisting the meaning of words at this point. The only way you make sense is if you claim that assumption and faith absolute synonymous.
I was giving you the benefit of doubt, given a few other posts in other threads, but now I have little doubt.
Most of my posts today have been somewhat tongue-in-cheek - barely "trolling", as they're too obviously cheeky - but not the ones to you.
I was giving you the benefit of doubt /because/ I liked some of your other posts (in other threads). In this one, you've been trolling.
The next question could be related, like "what are the implications of not knowing the answer?", or "how do I behave, given that I don't know the answer?". But you linger on the first question, answering as a matter of faith (??!), seemingly unable to accept the answer "I cannot do that, and here is why" and move on.
You are correct that "I cannot do that, and here is why" is the answer. And the answer to "how do I behave, given that I don't know the answer?" is "I nevertheless have faith in my memory". I think part of your problem is an aversion to the word "faith" - the acceptance of a belief without evidence.
If assumption == faith, then I'll let you say that I have... "faith in my assumptions", whatever that means. If assumption != faith, then what you just said is nonsensical. Up to you. In my native language, and I believe than in english as well, faith and assumption are wildly different. The key different is that I analysed *both* assumptions. But if you want to say that they are the same just to "win" an argument in slashdot, be my guest.
It was supposed to be an illustration of the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic analysis. I am seeing you as you might see the Alzheimer's sufferer.
(Ignoring this, because the only interpretation that I see is you saying I have dementia, so I'll assume the meaning was lost in translation)
That's nonsense. You are trying to find a physical process that allows you to disconnect your mind from your brain (or your thoughts from your mind?), by thinking about an unanswerable question in your own head and answering it by faith. I suspect you are not going to find it that way.
No, but maybe you misinterpreted in your keen urge to close my mind rather than open yours, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Close your mind? Not at all. It is you who claims that making an assumption is equivalent to having faith. Ok. But I disagree.
Consider in one hundred years' time that we have a fairly solid understanding of how memory works. Consider that we then establish that certain sorts of inconsistencies, when identified by humans, are immediately forgotten.
Acknowledging faith is, as noted above, simply a necessity.
And some inconsistencies aren't forgotten. But what does that has to do with "prove to me that your memory is reliable, i.e. show me how I can rely on my memory other than through faith."? You could have argued, "consider when we find FTL. Acknowledging faith is, as noted above, simply a necessity".
But I think that you pretty much agree with me, and just want to twist the definition of "faith" because you think faith=religion. And, like so many boys, you have an angry fear of religion.
I'm afraid that you are the one twisting the definition ("assumption == faith").
And you are also the one who thinks "faith" = "religion". For that, I have proof: you posted this in this thread. Unless you admit that you were just trolling the thread by posting an offtopic and inflamatory message.