I don't remember the argument I had with him, exactly. It was the aesthetics unit, I do remember that. I don't remember what prompted it, or how it went, or really anything about it except this:
That I posited an invention in which a machine could take the ideas in your mind and produce them onto paper or into sound or into art. The images you saw could be made real without you having to ever pick up a pencil, the words would flow the way they do in your head.
Science fiction tells me that if such a thing came into existence, a large subset of artists would scorn it. It takes no effort - it isn't real art. And you know, maybe they'd be right.
But at least I wouldn't be trapped with these ideas in my head that never turn out right. I think that'd be enough for me.