13) We imagine that the expression
“I can't see what you see” has been given sense
by explaining it to mean: “I can't see what
you see being in a different position relative to the object we are looking
at”, or “ … having not as good eyes as
you”, or “ … having found as in … that
B sees something which we don't though we look at the same
Object.”
etc.
I can't see your afterimage might be explained to mean I
can't see what you see if I close my eyes meaning
you say you see a red circle, I see a yellow one.
14) Identity of physical objects, of shapes, colours, dreams,
toothache.
15) (The thing || object we see)
The physical Object & its appearance.
Form of expression: different views of the same
physical object are different objects
seen.
We ask “What do you see” & he can either
answer “a chair”, or „this”
(& draw the particular view of the chair).
So we are now inclined to say that each man sees a different object
& one which no other person sees, for even if they look at the same
chair from the same spot it may appear different to them & the
objects before the other mind's eye I can't look at.
16) (I can't know whether he sees
anything
25
at all or
only behaves as I do when I see something.)
There seems to be an undoubted asym
metry in the use of the
word “
I || to see” (&
all words relating to personal experience).
One
can || is inclined to state this in the way that
“I know when I see something by just seeing it, without hearing
what I say or observing the rest of my behaviour whereas I know
that he sees &
what he sees only by observing
his behaviour, i.e. indirectly”.
a) There is a mistake in this ◇◇◇: I know
what I see because I see it”.
What does it mean to know that.
b) It is true to say that my reason for saying
that I see is not the observation of my behaviour.
But this is a
grammatical proposition
c) It seems to be an imperfection that I can only know
‒ ‒ ‒.
But this is just the way we use the word ‒ ‒ ‒. –
Could we then … if we could?
Certainly.