know=physical experience

First I will address the rebuttal line by line, then I will submit a body of argument. "knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past.." This seems to imply that truth can only be in the past. Can I not know that if I jump up in the air I will fall back down? Or if I don't like mayonnaise I still won't like it tomorrow? Inference is a legitimate form of knowledge that exists outside the past, as an abstraction about the future or present. "i obtain knowledge from logical constructs..." You obtain knowledge from logical constructs. This in of itself should be evidence enough that knowledge is far more than physical experience. Logical constructs are completely separate from physical experiences. This is more or less a confession! "...but i have no knowledge without my senses to begin with." I will seek to show evidence against this in the main body of my rebuttal. Without this qualifier standing, the previous claim is particularly damning to my opponents position. "i dont know the looks of 1 unseen, like a man born blind dont know rainbows" While I do not understand what you mean by the first half of this statement, I already addressed how a man born blind could come to have have knowledge of what something 'looks' like. You have provided no new arguments or supporting evidence as to why I am mistaken on this point other than merely contradicting me. This is insufficient and I hold my point as is. "it isnt a case against "experientialism" because math dosnt make matter..." If you don't identify your argument as experiential that is fine, but it has all the same components, so denying this is mostly semantic. Regardless, I will honor your request. Math is relevant to the discussion, however. Your initial conception of the argument proposes knowledge is equal to physical experience. As a form of non-physical knowledge, math is entirely relevant, as are any abstract concepts that we can obtain knowledge from. "just because you solved an equation dosnt mean it pops into reality, 1 dragon on your head+a dragon with a dragon hat=dragon on your head with a dragon hat" I never made such a claim. Just because when I multiply 5 times 3 in my head, 15 doesn't burst into physical form in front of me, does not mean that math isn't a form of abstraction, or that its performance isn't a demonstration of a non-physical knowledge. a blind man cant see... a blind mans sense is not of colors and light "machines cant tell me what is real, only what to believe" This is not coherent to me, nor do I see how machines are relevant to the discussion. The main rebuttal you have provided my is that, without senses, you do not have knowledge. While it may seem odd or hard to falsify at first this is actually easily shown. As Descarte said, "Cogito ergo sum" or, "I think, therefore I am." If I were to be born without senses, but still with a conscious, this proposition could still be made by me. My knowledge that I exist is the most reliable knowledge I have, because if it were not true, I could not think it. To show it more formally P1. Existence is required to be able to think. P2. I consciously think. C1. I must exist. Furthermore: P3. I know C1 is true P4. Knowing the truth value of a conclusion is a form of knowledge C2. I possess a form of knowledge C2 could be reached by someone without any physical senses. They would only need a conscious. I hold these propositions to show that you in fact, could obtain knowledge "without senses to begin with".