In context, W is talking about how we infer internal states based on external speech. So when he says "we could not understand him", he isn't saying that we cou

In context, W is talking about how we infer internal states based on external speech. So when he says "we could not understand him", he isn't saying that we couldn't understand a lion saying "the book is on the table" but rather that we could not infer what is going on "inside the lion's head". >"I cannot know what is going on in him" is above all a picture. It is the convincing expression of a conviction. It does not give the reasons for the conviction. They are not readily accessible. >If a lion could talk, we could not understand him. >It is possible to imagine a guessing of intentions like the guessing of thoughts, but also a guessing of what someone is actually going to do. To say "He alone can know what he intends" is nonsense: to say "He alone can know what he will do", wrong. For the prediction contained in my expression of intention (for example "When it strikes five I am going home") need not come true, and someone else may know what will really happen.