“I suppose what you say comes to this, that in order to
follow the rule “Add 1” correctly a new insight,
intuition, is needed at every step.” ‒ ‒
But what does it mean to follow the rule
correctly?
How and when is it to be decided which at a particular point is
the correct step to take? – “The correct step at every point is”
that
which is in accordance with the rule as it was
meant,
intended.” … with the
meaning,
intention, of the rule.” ‒ ‒
I suppose the idea is this: When you gave the rule,
“Add 1”, and meant it, you meant him to write 101
after 100, 199 after 198, 1041 after 1040, and so on.
But how did you do all these acts of meaning (I suppose an infinite
number of them) when you gave him the rule?
Or is this misrepresenting
101.
it?
And would you say that there was only one act of meaning, from which,
however, all these others, or any one of them, followed in
turn?
But isn't the point just: “what does follow
from the general rule?”
You might say, “Surely I knew when I gave him the rule
that I meant him to follow up 100 by 101.”
But here you are misled by the grammar of the word “to
know”.
Was knowing this some mental act by which you at the time made the
transition from 100 to 101, e.g., some act like saying
to yourself: “I want him to write 101 after
100”?
In this case ask yourself how many such acts you performed when you
gave him the rule.
Or do you mean by knowing some kind of disposition, – – then only
experience can teach us what it was a disposition for. ‒ ‒
“But surely if one had asked me which number he should write
after 1568, I should have answered ‘1569’.”
‒ ‒
I
dare say you would, but how can you
be sure of it?
Your idea really is that somehow in the mysterious act of
meaning the rule you made the transitions without really making
them.
You crossed all the bridges before you were there. ‒ ‒
This queer idea is connected with a peculiar use of the word
“to mean”.
Suppose our man got the number 100 and followed it up by 102.
We should then say, “I
meant you to write
101.”
Now the past tense in the word “to mean” suggests
that a particular act of meaning had been performed when the rule was
given, though as a matter of fact this expression alludes to no such
act.
The past tense could be explained by putting the sentence into the
form, “Had you asked me before what I wanted you to do at
this stage, I should have said … ”
But it is a hypothesis that you would have said that.