Thus, his statement:

“If that form becomes present to you in some way other than inhering in you, intellectual apprehension occurs without inherence in you.”

is an unsupported and false claim. A bare denial suffices to refute it, namely:

“We do not concede that presence unaccompanied by inherence constitutes intellectual apprehension without inherence, or entails intellectual apprehension without inherence.”

By inherence, we mean what we have already explained: awareness itself inhering in the subject who is aware, whether or not an intellectual form is involved. How much more so when we have seen that, across the various kinds of presence generally, presence without awareness does not constitute knowledge?

[The Eleventh Point]

He states:

“It is known that a thing’s presence to its agent, insofar as it is present to something other than itself, is no less than its presence to its recipient. Thus, the intrinsic effects of the intellective agent who acts by virtue of his essence are present without inhering in him. He therefore apprehends them intellectually without their inhering in him.”

The response is:

There is no doubt that their being produced and created in Him differs from their subsisting in Him. But we must recognize that no rational person has said that knowing created things requires those things to inhere in the Creator’s essence, just as His creating them is the very act of bringing their essences into existence.

No rational person has said that what is created and produced is identical with what inheres and is received, such that we need to distinguish between the two by saying that one of them