Once you get down to it(and don't make me walk you through how), materialism and empiricism itself are founded on the premise that Memory is an accurate account of our perceptions. I think it is an exercise in absurdity to make this assumption and that without this assumption knowledge of anything that is attained by your perceptions is impossible.

During my life I have observed, and I'm sure you have too, several instances in which I remember doing things that I did not actually do(or could not have done if the rest of my memory was correct). These contradict other memories or the other memories of other people. This shows that I can not accept memory as a reliable record of my perceptions as it is often self-contradictory.

I have already gone too far in my demonstration because even if memory were perfectly consistant, there is no reason to believe that it is an accurate account. We have nothing to, as subjective entities, compare memory to that could possibly affirm it in a meaningful way.

Without reliable memory empiricism becomes nonsensical as we cannot rely on memory to gain any insight into reality.

Can anyone here justify the accuracy of memory?