>>> for the sake of everyone's sanity it is best to use words as they are traditionally defined. Wouldn't the subconscious only think in mathematical terms? There is a difference. In epistemology ... >my conscious mind that says that I won't do it>I can acknowledge the possibility of *all* my perceptions as false, but it seems more consistent of a picture based on all the details that I am aware that this would be a flawed way of perceiving the world.>This is not to say that all subconscious perceptions are reliable, but we use the extensive reliability of our perceptions as a base by which to do some error checking by our cognitive skills. >This is very close to what Alex claims but not exactly. What he states is presented as a authoritative proclamation without real defense. The way I see it, what he says is equivalent to the following: my (that is Alex's) mental model of reality contains the concept that everything is derived from mathematics and if your mental model of reality doesn't contain this concept then your mental model is wrong! I hope you can understand the difference between what he is saying and what I am saying.>Are you suggesting that experiment is no longer *the* driving force behind good science?>The models of science are mainly justified on empirical success.you must ask where does any kind of semi-objective knowledge come from?> if the interpretation of your model is correct.>What about uncomputable numbers? >>Of course, that is not a periodical review process! >reliable means to interpret the meaning of A.B.C. (or G.O.D.), is not based on any foundation.>- only true within the realm of mathematics.>In short, your interpreted model that we cannot justify our knowledge based on our subconscious perceptions is itself justified by subconscious perceptions.