I've noticed I make a distinction between seeing objects and seeing parts of arguments. If you point out a bird moving round I might say "I can't see it... Oh yes, now I can."

Whereas in arguments, I would say "I don't see" the objection, or point, or connection, or inference, if I thought that perhaps there was one but I was being too glib or obtuse to consider it properly. But if I said "I can't see" it, it's stronger: I rather suspect there isn't any good objection, connection or whatever to be seen.

My question is this. I understand in American usage "don't see" is the normal form for physical seeing, so do users of that form make the same distinction as me in arguments?

(And of course there's habitual uses, which are not relevant here: you don't see them every day, I can't see through microscopes, etc.)

The distinction seems to be clearer in the negative, though it applies in the positive too: "Where's the bird? Oh, I can see it now" v. "I see the problem here" (it's fairly obvious) v. "I can see the problem here" (I've managed to find it).