But, you failed here in that you constructed your argument to allow for things which made it so you can prove your senses work. See, for your senses to work, you must be neutrally reporting some world. Also, some world must exist. That world must also be able to be sensed by your sense.
For your senses to be responding falsely requires assumptions about a reality as well.
But, there is a third choice. Your senses report something which is not false as in there is a correct and this is not it, but which is a report which has no truth value. In other words, we simplify by removing the reality your senses perceive. The assumptions of the first two can be broken into two set. The assumptions of your senses, and the assumptions of the reality you sense. We will now change one assumption, which is the assumption that your senses are receiving data from some reality, either correctly or incorrectly. We will instead say they are receiving the data from machine X. We will then define the reality in which X exist, but we will cut away the assumptions so that X is composed of fewer assumptions about it than the reality you think we perceive (this is doable because this reality does not need any assumptions about it being able to be sensed).
Wait wait wait, your first statement:
'But, you failed here in that you constructed your argument to allow for things which made it so you can prove your senses work.' Did you just argue that I failed to prove my position by succeeding to prove my position? Does that make any sense to you at all? I think I completely failed to understand your argument here, it was utterly nonsensical to me.
As per your 2nd series of statements, machine X is an assumption unto itself. We have no direct proof of machine X's existence, therefore we must assume machine X's existence in any hypothesis that relies upon machine X. Since a truthful reporting of senses does not require the existence of machine X, a truthful reporting has fewer assumptions and is therefore more likely to be correct.
And even if you completely disagree with this, let me ask this. Do you have faith in occam's razor? Is there an assumption it works?
No I don't, Occam's Razor makes logical sense to me. If I have a penny and put it under a cup, it's logical to assume it's still under that cup if I've seen nothing disturb it. It would take an additional assumption about reality for me to believe that penny is no longer there (somebody stole it, even though I have no proof). Therefore, Occam's Razor is logical, it has been consistently accurate in predicting the relative likelihood of events and hypothesis' for me. Note I said in predicting likelihood, not predicting events- One can believe something without faith and have that something still be wrong, so long as the evidence and logic available to them leans towards the idea of that something being true.
Now that we have gotten though that, we can turn to the next subject. Logic. Why do you accept the axioms of logic? What ever you base this on then results if you having to justify that without resorting to logic.
This is senseless, you argue as if you don't know what logic is. Logic is the very study of valid argumentation- of demonstration and inference. It is logical to say the sun is not a cherry pie. To argue the invalidity of logic is to take the idea of nihilism to the extreme and leaves us only with the statement 'The sun may or may not be a cherry pie, there is no way of ascertaining this'.
To say I must justify something without logic is stupid, it's saying 'you must justify something without justifying it'. But let's look at a few things:
1 + 1 = 2 If I have a hat and my hat is brown, then I have a brown hat
1 + 1 =\= 3 If I have a hat, and my hat is brown, then I do not have a red hat
If A and B then AB If I have a cat and I have a dog, then I have a dog and cat
1 - 1 = 0 If I have a brown hat, but it is not a bowler, then I have a brown hat that is not a bowler
This continues on up through complex logic. I like formal logic, when you see me make statements of 'if ... then ...' I am using formal logic to prove how statements A, B, C whether positive or negative produce conclusion D. The rules of logic make differentiation of this clear and concise, allowing a rapid analysis of the premise and conclusion so as to confirm it's validity.
If I have a hat and a cane, but do not have a suit, then I cannot dress up as an english gent.
Where my premise are that I have a hat, that I have a cane, and I do not have a suit.
My conclusion is that I cannot dress up as an english gent.
Validation of formal logic is tied very closely to the validation of math, because formal logic is effectively the math of ideas. 1 + 1 = 2, 2/2 = 1, etc etc etc. We can prove math and logic using rocks on the ground, there is an empirical basis for proving their basic parts, and then they build upon this empirical groundwork to produce complex statements.
So stating logic is illogical is to state that 2 + 2 =\= 4 in single space.
This is formal logic, it is very 'formal' and follows a set algorithm, I suggest you study it, if you're in college, take a course on logic. This stuff is amazingly useful. But to argue against it is silly, because to state logic does not exist is to state that the sun is cherry pie.
To sum it up, your argument makes no sense, you are arguing "it is, therefore it's not"
