[MD] indefensible yet enlightening

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Horse, quoting Craig] 

"No one thinks in pictures, because the picture would have to be 
interpretted & that could not be done by another picture. 
(see Wittgenstein)"   

[Horse] 
> I'm not sure why you think that no-one thinks in pictures. 

Strange.  You quote my (& Wittgenstein's) argument, then ask for an argument. 
Perhaps an example will help: 
(I'll assume we're talking about "mental" pictures here.) 
Suppose you hear scratching on the other side of a door & a picture of a cat 
comes to mind.  Could this picture be what's meant by "thinking there is a cat 
on the other side of the door"? 
No, because this same picture could come to mind when thinking "I wish a cat 
would chase away t he squirrel scratching on the other side of the door". 
The pict ure cannot play the needed role of thinking, " because the picture 
would have to be interpretted & that could not be done by another picture". 
You could think " there is a cat on the other side of the door" even if a picture 
of a car came to mind. 
Craig