no to developing a "higher order interpretative capacity"; is this about interpretation against all possible doubt, or all actual doubt? sometimes caveats may lead one to think one is talking about the latter, yet there is no "capacity" to interpret "I" as "now" in all actuality

no amount of mathematics deals with the dispelling of spooky metaphysics or poor conceptual hygiene, and yet the only difference between a philosopher and a scientist is that we should expect the former to doubt the illusion before the scientist tests it

no spooks, no ghostbusters, absolutely magical

"After all, is it not deep magic that gets us to believe that nothing is really coloured, that material objects are not really solid, that one cannot really know whether the sun will rise tomorrow, and that a person is really his brain?" — hacker

spooks production? i think so!

neither math nor logic for that matter addresses spooks. wittgenstein left the door open to magicians to address spooks (see penn & teller for a vulgar yet contemporary example).

i don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

i think only bad faith can maintain that spooks must be the result of such a "depth of magic", or else we must concede, by wittgenstein's word, that science itself is chiefly in the business of producing spooks! (i'm ok, perhaps even tickled, with such a conclusion)

it's funny how so many people demand that their paradoxes be accepted, or not only accepted, but cherished; as much as they themselves are paradoxes, ain't we all just looking for validation, to be looooovvved?

i'd say the "all actual doubt vs all possible doubt" or "'I' as 'now'" is the appropriate target for this thread, whereas piddling about the mathematics remark is just climbing the mountain instead of talking to it, status-checking bare noise