```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link WHERE file.cday = date(this.file.name) SORT file.cday ASC ``` # Irene Sorry, Irene. We're having some trouble with the account, and we're going to restrict it for the time being. Basically, too many people were using it, and people were using it outside of Italy. As a result, the account got locked down for 24 hours, so only the free version was available instead of the services we pay for. I spoke with Enrico and some of the group yesterday in the office, and we decided that we are going to limit how many people use it at the moment because we don't want to lose the account. Sorry again. FWI Google has a very good free version of Chat GPT called Gemini, if you have a Twitter account you get to use Grok for free, which is also very good (although you are using an Elon Musk service...) # notes on refereeing I enjoy this paper a lot. I think it's an [[interesting idea]], well-argued. I'm sure that people could find objections to the various positive claims that [[the author]] makes in his account, but I can't think of any obvious objections. The arguments are detailed, convincing, and show a clear grasp of the literature. All of the ideas presented in Parts Two and Three of the paper are solid, sound, and interesting. The section towards the end on visibilia, and Martin and Matthen's ideas was particularly interesting. My only real complaint (which isn't that big a complaint) is how quickly [[the author]] dismissed Yetter-Chappell's view, which they call (the 'radical' view). I'm not asking for complete arguments that totally defeat her view, but I think her ideas about shadows could be addressed more directly, especially regarding how she builds her argument for including shadows within her extended account of seeing-through. In particular, I think it would be worthwhile to address her comparison between reflections in mirrors and shadows. Yetter-Chappell's approach in her 2018 paper is important: she uses a step-by-step comparison, starting from normal seeing, then moving through mirrors and mirror apps, video, and photographs. At each step, she argues that the differences don't really matter for the act of seeing. Shadows come in late (Section 3.4), specifically by comparing them directly with mirror reflections – which she has already argued involve literal seeing-through. Intuitively, at least to some people, [[the idea]] that we 'see through' mirrors doesn't sound completely strange; she starts by pushing this idea and then works toward shadows from there. Her argument for extending seeing-through to shadows then focuses on showing that the differences between reflections and shadows don't matter much for information transfer in seeing. She addresses potential differences like how rich the information is (arguing that limited seeing is still seeing) and, importantly, the type of information (reflectance vs. blockage), concluding that "whether information is transmitted by light reflectance or light blockage doesn't make a difference for seeing" (Yetter-Chappell 2018, p. 2030), mentioning silhouettes and seeing black objects in mirrors as examples. Why shouldn't your reader accept this sort of argument? Also, as mentioned, the mirror case seems more convincing on its own. Yetter-Chappell uses this to her advantage. The [[_Legacy/Research/Manuscripts/manuscript]] author could strengthen their position by checking whether their own counter-arguments against shadow-[[transparency]] work equally well, or perhaps not so well, for mirror-[[transparency]]. For instance, would the concerns about scene disconnection also apply to things we see in mirrors? It seems possible that an object seen in a mirror can be disconnected from the immediate scene containing the mirror (like seeing behind yourself). If this disconnection doesn't prevent seeing-through mirrors for Yetter-Chappell, why should it prevent seeing-through shadows, if her comparison holds? Similarly, think about the point regarding caster replacement. Could similar thought experiments be created for mirrors? Does the [[_Legacy/Research/Manuscripts/manuscript]]'s argument depend on physical details (like absorption vs. reflection) that differentiate shadows from mirrors in a way not yet fully explained in the criticism? I understand this is a paper about shadows, not mirrors, so I'm not suggesting adding a lot more. I think there should be something more substantial on her view and reasons not to accept it, specifically by directly addressing why her comparison fails or why the differences she considers unimportant (like reflectance vs. blockage) actually do create a meaningful difference for seeing ## typos/minor things "no pictures" on page 3, line 25 I didn't [[know what]] 'Chinese shadows' meant. Maybe it's worth putting "Chinese shadow puppets" or "puppetry" or something like that. 'Following an established usage, let me call casters [[the objects]], projecting light on surfaces, call them screens' (p. 1 and 2) This is not clear at all and almost sounds like castors are the ones that *project* light **Section 1, Footnote 1 (p. 3):** 'As Metelli (ib.:91) himself stresses...' it should be ibid. right? ![[attachments/Screenshot_20250328-140147.png]] # Enrico message. Hi, Just a quick email. First of all, sorry, but I haven't submitted [[the article]] to PPR yet. I got distracted working on the presentation, and i've had some refereeing I needed to catch up on. I'll either do it this evening or over the weekend. Second, just in case you're interested, it's an AI summary of the meeting yesterday. I don't think you have time to read it, but I will stick one in the repository as well for your records. Third, my aim next week is to try and establish a proper structure for the gardening paper and also start thinking about our engineering project. I think i am going to start by going rereading the lowe and see if there are interesting responses to this idea. By the way, my schedule is pretty relaxed next week, so let me know if you want to meet up and talk about this paper, the gardening paper, or another paper. The [[second half]] of the week might be better, just so I've had a bit of time to work on engineering or gardening. Anyway, have a good weekend, Nick Ciao, Il mio amico vorrebbe unirsi al gruppo. Sarebbe possibile? Il suo username su Telegram è @giutorrenz Parola segreta: Norilsk grazie!