What would I do differently if I believed it was true, or wasn’t? What expectations about future events would I have in one case, that I wouldn’t have in the other? What beliefs about past events would I have in one case, that I wouldn’t have in the other?
The Tortoise’s mind needs the dynamic of adding Y to the belief pool when X and (X→Y) are previously in the belief pool. If this dynamic is not present—a rock, for example, lacks it—then you can go on adding in X and (X→Y) and (X⋀(X→Y))→Y until the end of eternity, without ever getting to Y.
This appears to be a circular argument.
Maybe we could honestly accept than impossible demands of rigor are indeed impossible. And focus on what is possible.
This is why I wrote this:
I understand that this has no decision-making value.
What would I do differently if I believed it was true, or wasn’t?
What expectations about future events would I have in one case, that I wouldn’t have in the other?
What beliefs about past events would I have in one case, that I wouldn’t have in the other?
I understand that this has no decision-making value. I’m only interested in the philosophical meaning of this point.
Hm.
Can you say more about what you’re trying to convey by “philosophical meaning”?
For example, what is the philosophical meaning of your question?
That if we are to be completely intellectually honest and rigorous, we must accept complete skepticism.
Hm.
OK. Thanks for replying, tapping out here.
Maybe we could honestly accept than impossible demands of rigor are indeed impossible. And focus on what is possible.
You can’t convince a rock to agree with you on something. There is still some chance with humans.
This appears to be a circular argument.
This is why I wrote this:
It means you should learn to like learning other languages/ways of thinking.