If I can speak about ‘what is seen’, why shouldn't anyone else speak about it? – But I have a feeling that only I can; if I assume that others also speak about what normally I should call my visual image there seems to me to be something
wrong with this assumption.
   If ‘what I see’ has nothing to do with a particular person why should I feel that there's something wrong in assuming that anybody might talk about it i.e. mean it when he speaks? Then of course I can't tell them what I see nor they me what they see any more than I can tell myself what I see.
   But they could make conjectures as to what might happen in future in our visual field.
     In the normal game I say: “I don't know what they see, they've got to say what they see”, – but in the game I'm concidering they would as much know what I see as my hand can wri[g|t]e down what my mouth can say.
    And their ˇdifferent conjecture would be like conjectures made by myself at different times.
   Can my mouth tell my hand what I see in order that my hand should be able to write it down?