Many thanks for that follow-up question.
Yes, I completely agree: Landy misses the point that it’s really possible to represent a complex state of affairs *as* complex, via pre-reflective, non-self-consciously conscious spatial & temporal intuition, hence essentially non-conceptually.
And I replied explicitly to Landy to that effect, on p. 79 in Cognition, Content, & the A Priori:
A good counterexample to Landy’s claim is the Necker Cube, whose spontaneously “flipping” aspects are incongruent mirror-reflected counterparts, like the right & left hands, hence their difference can’t be determined conceptually: yet, we immediately visually recognize the difference in complexity between the two distinct visual cube-arrays; & as it turns out, even some non-human animals, who presumably lack conceptual capacities altogether, visually experience the flipping Necker aspects too.
