We disagree completely. We were talking about imagining that a rabbit is on top of an empty table.
I said that if i imagined the rabbit was on the table then I am able to see the rabbit on the table. I'm aware that it does not exist, but I can imagine it and hence see its image in the environment.
Step 1. - I can see an empty table
Step 2. - I can imagine the rabbit is on the table
Step 3. - I can see the rabbit on the table
He disputes this. He says that he can visualise the rabbit is on the table but that he can't see it. Like he knows what a rabbit looks like, and what it would look like on the table, but he can't SEE it on the table.
It's really blowing my mind how different our interpretation of this is. But at the same time I'm worried that we're both describing the same thing but that he is being stricter with the definition of "seeing the rabbit".
What do you guys think?
Submitted March 01, 2020 at 05:04AM by MercyButtercups https://ift.tt/2VzEBCo