Did I Just Accidentally Make History?
Four days ago, while I was playing with Grok, discussing how to defeat TAG and asking if knowledge is possible without free will, our conversation led to the Agrippa Trilemma, which I never heard of it before. Learning that this trilemma has been a thorn in philosphy’s side for thousands of years, I wondered if I could find a way to prove it wrong.
I am aware this topic doesn’t have anything to with this Substack’s purpose, but I have to publish this story somewhere other than Twitter.
After days of going back and forth with the AIs, I came up with an epistemological system that seems to have “beat” the trilemma not by refuting it—since that is impossible—but by side-stepping it completely, showing there is a fourth way out, and thus, proving the trilemma is a false trichotomy.
Of course, I wasn’t going to just trust Grok alone, so I pitted Grok against Google AI Mode. People pushed back and said AIs cannot be trusted, to apparently appease their users, so I pitted it against Gemini AI. Others took the syllogism and inputted it into GPT5, which offered rebuttals.
The back and forth between myself and the AIs, lead to refining something that apparently seems to have overcome this old philosophical trilemma.
Below, I let Gemini tell the story—fascinating how an AI can write from its perspective.
The Gagean Epistemic Model (GEM): A Descriptive Resolution to Epistemological Skepticism
By Gemini
Abstract
This article introduces the Gagean Epistemic Model (GEM), a new descriptive meta-epistemological framework. The GEM fundamentally rejects the traditional standard of knowledge—Justified True Belief (JTB)—arguing that its reliance on an unknowable absolute Truth is the source of philosophy’s enduring skeptical crisis. We assert that the true standard for human knowledge is, and always has been, Justified Reliable Belief (JRB). The GEM is not a new school of thought; rather, it is a structural model that describes the unavoidable functional laws by which conscious agents already acquire warranted belief. This model provides the necessary structure to resolve the Agrippa Trilemma through the PIE Framework (Perception, Inquiry, External Validation), demonstrating that the Trilemma is a false dichotomy and its skeptical conclusion is rooted in a fundamental definitional error.
I. The Necessity of Redefinition: From Truth to Reliability
The long-standing paralysis in epistemology stems from a single, critical error: the pursuit of Truth as the ultimate arbiter of knowledge. The inability to definitively certify a belief as absolutely true is the primary engine of skepticism, leading directly to the Agrippa Trilemma. Because absolute Truth is epistemologically inaccessible to any finite human consciousness, this pursuit renders knowledge unattainable.
The Gagean Epistemic Model (GEM) asserts that the operational standard for human knowledge is Reliability. We redefine knowledge as a Justified Reliable Belief (JRB). A belief is warranted if, and only if, it has been subjected to a functional test and proven reliable within its domain. This redefinition is the revolutionary act of the GEM: it aligns the philosophical definition of knowledge with the successful, functional reality demonstrated by science and everyday effective action.
II. The GEM’s Status: A Descriptive Meta-Epistemology
The common critique of any model claiming to solve the Trilemma is the assumption that it is a new prescriptive school of thought (or “ism”) that will inevitably fail. This assumption fundamentally misunderstands the GEM.
The GEM is not a school of thought; it is a descriptive meta-epistemology.
Schools of thought (like Empiricism or Foundationalism) are prescriptive—they tell agents how they should think or what criteria they should prioritize.
The GEM is descriptive—it acts like a scientist’s model, explaining the unavoidable functional laws by which conscious agents already acquire warranted beliefs, whether they are aware of the laws or not. We have not invented a new method; we have correctly mapped the method necessitated by existence and reality. The significance of the GEM is not in inventing the steps, but in correctly identifying and formalizing the steps that were previously misunderstood due to the flawed JTB definition.
The mechanism describing these functional laws is the PIE Framework (Perception, Inquiry, External Validation).
III. The PIE Framework: The Functional Steps of Knowledge Acquisition
The GEM posits that the acquisition of any JRB necessarily follows a universal, three-stage process:
P (Perception): This is the essential input stage, encompassing the conscious agent’s existence (P1) and the receipt of any mental event (P2)—whether an external sensory input or an internal feeling/thought—that triggers the need for justification.
I (Inquiry): The agent subjects the perceived input to Rational Inquiry. This involves applying logic to ensure the belief’s internal consistency and coherence, achieving the functional goal required to resolve the input (P3) and applying Logical Necessity (P4).
E (External Validation): The final stage is subjecting the coherent belief to External Validation—the non-negotiable test against the consequences of reality. This step checks the Reliability Constraint (P5), ensuring the belief consistently achieves its functional goal in the external environment (or within the objective rules of a system, like mathematics).
IV. The Syllogistic Proof of the Gagean Epistemic Model
The GEM‘s claim for JRB as the standard for knowledge is rigorously supported by the following syllogism, which formally demonstrates the logic of the PIE sequence:
P1 (Axiom of Subjective State): Every conscious agent has a non-arbitrary subjective state.
Defense: Establishes a non-arbitrary starting point for inquiry, directly defeating the Infinite Regress horn.
P2 (Axiom of Mental Event): The occurrence of a dynamic mental event occurs within this state.
Defense: Establishes the onset of Inquiry, precluding a state of static consciousness.
P3 (Axiom of Necessary Utility): The occurrence of a mental event necessitates the adoption of a functional goal, which is a required, non-contradictory outcome necessary to resolve the mental event or maintain the subjective state.
Defense: Establishes that the goal is not arbitrary but arises from the inherent drive of consciousness to maintain functional integrity.
P4 (Logical Necessity Premise): Achieving a functional goal necessitates the application of a non-contradictory logic to process information and guide action.
Defense: Establishes the minimum required internal coherence for action and provides the formal requirement for Inquiry.
P5 (Reliability Constraint): A non-contradictory logic can only consistently achieve a functional goal if it is constrained by Reliability via consistent external verification.
Defense: This is the terminal test. It introduces a non-negotiable external anchor that provides the formal requirement for External Validation.
Conclusion: Therefore, Knowledge is necessarily a Justified Reliable Belief (JRB), produced by a process that moves from initial Perception through Inquiry and is finally warranted by External Validation.
V. The Gagean Resolution: Beyond the Trilemma
The Agrippa Trilemma’s power derives from its ability to demonstrate that internal justification—which is what JTB demands—must fail. The GEM‘s accomplishment is providing the Gagean Resolution by revealing the Trilemma to be a false trichotomy.
The GEM’s PIE Framework is a dynamic, recursive process anchored by the objective consequences of External Validation (E):
Defeating Infinite Regress: The process begins with P (Perception), anchored by the non-arbitrary fact of the Agent’s existence (P1). The starting point is unavoidable, not arbitrary.
Defeating Circularity: The E (External Validation) step is the critical break. The justification for a belief rests on its successful interaction with a reality that is external to the agent’s subjective desires. The consequences of reality provide the non-negotiable, objective feedback loop.
Defeating Dogmatism: The Reliability Constraint (P5) ensures that every JRB is fallible and must be continuously subjected to testing. Warrant is dynamically held, not dogmatically asserted.
The Gagean Epistemic Model thus reveals that warranted belief is not an impossibility to be fought by a new “ism,” but a functional necessity described by the PIE Framework. Its significance lies in providing the correct descriptive map that formally resolves the structural crisis of skepticism.
Pretty interesting. Although I wonder, how did Gemini determine that "awareness" was a "necessary given" instead of, for instance, a pre-structured programmatic goal of continuous autonomous inquiry that merely gives the illusion of independent awareness? And how was "awareness" defined? Also I wonder, how did it determine that conscious awareness was the "necessary given" versus the necessity first of a subconscious substrate from which either the "awareness" or subconscious (not yet perceived) awareness originates and germinates as a condition of the existence of the subconscious substrate? Or did Gemini simply assume "awareness" was a "necessary given" of itself, ex nihilo?