That’s fair, except I never said we don’t/can’t have any notion of conceivability that lets us ‘conceive the impossible’. I just meant that as this and the other terms are normally used, we talk as though there is always a ‘thing’ that is being conceived, imagined, depicted. Perhaps ‘represent’ is the clearest example of this. Still, I think you got what I was trying to say.

"So, absent a notion of conceivability that allow you conceive of things that don’t exist – not here or in any possible world – switching from brains to computers won’t make a difference." what i understand from here is that we don't have a notion of conceivability that allows us to conceive of things that don’t exist @MarkOxford

that because illogical situations or things doesn't exist, we don't know how to/can't imagine, represent them...

“we don't have a notion of conceivability that allows us to conceive of things that don’t exist” You and I don’t currently have one, but I don’t want to rule out that others have developed such a notion. (I don’t know the topic that well.) That’s why I suggested looking at the literature on conceivability.

and just to clarify everything, what did you exactly mean with "I just meant that as this and the other terms are normally used, we talk as though there is always a ‘thing’ that is being conceived, imagined, depicted. Perhaps ‘represent’ is the clearest example of this" @MarkOxford

and in the case that philosophical limitations would exist (as we discussed at first place in this discussion) nobody could develop such notion of conceivability isn't it?

ok, after reading all the conversation i think i understand the ""I just meant that as this and the other terms are normally used, we talk as though there is always a ‘thing’ that is being conceived, imagined, depicted. Perhaps ‘represent’ is the clearest example of this"" part

but again, if philosophical limitations due to the nature of thought and thought content existed, then as you said before, these limitations couldn't be overtaken, so nobody could develop such notion of conceivability right? @MarkOxford