I critically analyse two causal analyses of seeing, by Frank Jackson and Michael Tye.I show that both are unacceptable. I argue that Jackson's analysis fails because it doesnot rule out cases of non-seeing. Tye's analysis seems to be superior to Jackson's in thisrespect, but I show that it too lets in cases of non-seeing. I also show that Tye's proposed solution to a problem for his theory – which involves a robot that mimics another (unseen) robot – fails. Finally I show that his `variability' requirement is not necessary, because there are cases where someone can see an object even though the variability that Tye requires doesnot exist.