PHIL. And those, I suppose, are to be thought real which are discovered by the most near and exact survey. HYL. Right. PHIL. Is the nearest and exactest survey made by the help of a microscope, or by the naked eye? HYL. By a microscope, doubtless. PHIL. But a microscope often discovers colours in an object different from those perceived by the unassisted sight. And, in case we had microscopes magnifying to any assigned degree, it is certain that no object whatsoever, viewed through them, would appear in the same colour which it exhibits
Again, he's expecting me to rely upon my intuitive implicit acceptance of real, corporeal substance (which can be examined in a microscope), in order to make his point about the distinction between real and apparent properties. But to do this, is to surrender his original project, of proving that there is no such thing as corporeal substance that exists beyond what is experienced in the mind as perception.
