Julian Barbour argues that motion is a serie of still photographs, played at 24frames per second, that our brains interpret, the images you are watching now, seem to move, but nothing is moving. He uses the disease called 'Epekinesis" as an example. But how can we feel movement even if we have that disease? this disease is clearly the impossibility to PERCEIVE movement, not the impossibility to MOVE, when we close our eyes, we continue to move, that is the proof that movement has nothing to do with that way he describes it, his logic fails here. what do you think?