“But do you mean that one man couldn't play a game of chess with himself &

without anyone else knowing that he did?— What, would you say, he should do in order that we may say he is playing| to be playing with himself a private game of chess? Just anything?— Would you say he must go through certain private experiences which I can indirectly describe by saying that they are the experiences which he has when playing a certain game chess (in the ordinary sense of the word)? I suppose you would say e.g. that he imagines a chessboard with the chessmen on it, that he imagines certain moves etc.. And if you were asked what it means to imagine a chessboard, you would explain it by pointing to a real chessboard or, say to a picture of one and analogously if you were asked what does it mean to imagine the king of chess, a pawn, a knight's move etc.. Or should you have said: He must go through certain …. But what private experiences are there & will any of them do in this case? For

instance feeling hot?. “No! The private experience I am talking of must have the multiplicity of the game of chess: But again does he recognize two private experiences to be different by a further private experience & this to be the
[private experiences in fiction.]

same in the different cases? Mustn't we say in this case that we can't say anything whatever about private experiences & are in fact not entitled to use the words experiences at all? What makes us believe that … we are in, that we really think of the case in which we can describe his private experiences describing different ways of playing chess in one's imagination.