# important file ![[talk-split-view.html]] # live transcript of my comments on the most up to date version of the video. I hate the underlying on the first slide of the authorship underneath the big title at the start. The smallest text is still a little bit too small. When it says read-author unknown, it's too small for my audience to read, especially on the grey. btw, I don't like the sort of dots as the background that you have at the moment. Can you change that to something something more interesting please? Not too distracting of course. I hate the phrase but philosophy isn't reasoned in the head and written up afterwards. That's sloganeering and it's an idea I'm not endorsing at all. Never do stuff like this and double check everything you do to make sure you don't do it again. Also on that slide there's a little bit too much yes slogans man. The substrate of philosophical practices, the substrate of training. Don't slogan ear like that. Don't don't do this sort of stuff. It needs to be more serious than this. Okay? The corpus is distillate. The corpuses distillate, the animation looks great, but they're flo the particles are floating the wrong way, I think. Again, as we go a little bit too much editorialising in the big phrases okay, and even in the smaller phrases. Okay, you need to be yeah closer to my original more analytic ways of phrasing things. It needs to be less like a sizzle reel. On the Some Thought Experiment, Xavi says need phenomenology, the Einstein text immediately below is overlapping. And the lift is also going through the floor still. Maybe just remove the floor. There were some fussy labels there as well. That's a very cheesy, merry slide. Maybe we'll have to ditch that. It is okay. And yeah, I'd like the full Sellars quote. Okay, I'm gonna do a second one through the video again just to see if I can pick up anything else. So I might repeat myself here. The text on the first slide is too small where it says reads and yields. And actually a reader, a text and time well spent are also written in far too small a type. The interlocutor's thesis is a terrible way of putting things. I really hate the underlining on the main title on the next slide. The next slide about by a philosopher by an llm, is the argument valid, etc. is a terrible infographic. It should be replaced by content from what I tell you to be. Yeah, content from what I the move the new moves it will be. Maybe cut the authorship slides, the blind reviews animation as well, and add just content instead. btw, the constitutive challenge fails sounds too strong. And also we don't have an end like that for section two or section three. So I'd like all of them to have some sort of an end, but to be more analytic and more less bombastic than your big slide. I'd like a longer Floridi quote in section two. The pages where the thinking happens, you need to replace this with more worked-out detail. Two layers, not one. Why are we talking about layers and it's yeah, it's terrible, it's really misleading to the audience. Stick much more closely to my actual ideas because you're editorializing far too much and saying just untrue, confusing things. You need to double-check pretty much every line of text on this to make sure you're not doing that there. Because it's vital that you don't, because you'll make me look stupid if you do. Yeah, the merry animation we've got to get rid of it. It's stupid and pointless. It would be much better if we just have text here, sort of presented nicely instead. Getting more content from the moves. Yeah, like this is pretty good science and philosophy use the world differently. The only thing missing is immediately afterwards we should mention the Einstein experiment and how that fits in with whatever thing we've just said. Is your examples on the next way of elevator passages and roller coasters, can they be a little bit more realistic please? I don't think you're really trying there at all. Okay, maybe even give just sort of some obvious examples. And also do a few philosophy things, but do a few real novels or sort of with authors famous for phenomenological description. Okay, that would be the easiest thing to do now, rather than those sort of beige labels you just gave me. That diagram of what's articulating the phenomenology m suggests sort of a wrong proportion suggests that phenomenology is maybe a bit bigger than we'd think. I'm not sure. Actually scratch that comment, I'm not sure I agree with myself. Yeah, I hate the phrase center of mass of its distribution. It's a phrase you invented and I keep telling you to remove and you keep leaving it in. It's really stupid and nothing like it should be anywhere near my presentation. Yeah, you're sloganeering too much in section four as well. And yeah, all the way through everything is slogan, you need to replace it with proper content. The human contribution shift into the prompt is very strong as well. Again, editorialising at the cost of accuracy and yeah clarity. --- # What's Happening *Active threads and today's activity — updated by /harvest* ## Active ## Sessions ## Actions - Rewrote §3 moves in [[Generating Philosophy with AI — Argument Moves (Lingnan–Genoa–Kobe, 2026-04-23)]] · [▶ live viewer](https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://gist.githubusercontent.com/nickneek/46ee19235716697d7000780ab3f3867e/raw/generating-philosophy-moves-deck.html) — dropped Williamson opener, fixed Zahavy quote attribution, reworked Pigliucci with block quote, Mary as worry-setup and dropped from end, Merleau-Ponty as sole limit case, new phenomenology-focused exhibition move, now 19 moves in 7 groups. - Second §3 pass on the same note/deck — M1 reframed as challenge (not question), M3 leads with the Einstein case, M5 expands Chinese-rooms substantively, M6 makes Mary↔Einstein parallel explicit, M8 links teleonomic contrast to Eddington's verification role, M10 states the post-Pigliucci challenge directly, M12 less listy / more substantive on the phenomenology tradition, M13 actually runs the Einstein reply argument, Twin Earth dropped, remaining moves de-metacommentated. Now 18 moves in 7 groups. - Third §3 pass — dropped "permuting symbols" from M2 (the gloss quote in M3 does that work), fused old M2+M3 into one Zahavy-claim-through-Einstein-case move, fixed Pigliucci overreach in old M8 (dropped the Eddington "both ends of science / internal only to philosophy" stretch; replaced with Pigliucci's own teleonomic/"empirically informed evoking" contrast), M7 cut to three items with Bengson 2015 cite (phenomenology of intuition, agency, feeling of time passing), M11 and M12 fused, Moore's coins dropped, new empirical-colour-phenomenology-observation move added after Einstein retort. Now 16 moves in 7 groups. - Fourth §3 pass — M7 (Pigliucci) opens with explicit callback to the phenomenology challenge ("But the challenge assumes philosophy needs phenomenology the way science does"), then reframes via Pigliucci's teleonomic vs empirically-informed-evoking distinction and lands the upshot (philosophy doesn't need raw experience — articulated descriptions functioning as axioms are enough); all other moves unchanged. - Fifth §3 pass — Pigliucci reframe restructured to stop pretending thought experiments work differently in science vs philosophy (they don't — Einstein and Mary are phenomenologically identical in that respect). Old M7 replaced with a two-move sequence: M7 concedes the parallel explicitly (both cases required felt experience for someone to originate the thought experiment); M8 makes the origination-vs-use distinction (once articulated, philosophy works with the articulation, which is what LLMs have access to). Pigliucci block quote now M9, sharpened challenge now M10. Teleonomic/evoking framing dropped entirely. Group renamed "origination vs use". §3 now 17 moves. - Sixth §3 pass — after checking §3 draft in the longform project, simplified the Pigliucci group back to three moves. Dropped the explicit origination-vs-use framing (my invention, adding complexity). New M7 now just says Pigliucci reframes what philosophy draws from the world (articulated propositions, not raw felt experience) with concrete examples (the felt red, the felt weight-shift). M8 is the block quote. M9 is the sharpened challenge. Group renamed back to "the Pigliucci reframe". §3 now 16 moves. - Seventh §3 pass — M7 was simple but had a jump (asserted Pigliucci's axioms view without giving a reason). Rewrote to include the bridging work in one sentence: science requires empirical verification (Einstein's equivalence principle needed Eddington), philosophy doesn't, and because philosophy is relieved of that verification demand its inputs can be articulated propositions rather than raw felt experience. Frames the distinction explicitly at discipline level (verification), not at thought-experiment level — so doesn't fall into the "pretending thought experiments work differently" trap. Still 3 moves in the Pigliucci group, 16 moves in §3 total. - Full §2 rewrite on [[Generating Philosophy with AI — Argument Moves (Lingnan–Genoa–Kobe, 2026-04-23)]] · [▶ live viewer](https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://gist.githubusercontent.com/nickneek/46ee19235716697d7000780ab3f3867e/raw/generating-philosophy-moves-deck.html) — 20 moves collapsed to 12 in 5 groups; Lipton introduced once (where likeliness/loveliness earns its keep, not at the opening); "filter is itself abduction" claim dropped (overreach); old M5's speculation about human philosophers replaced with a textual argument via Floridi's own concession on training-origin; Groups ordered charge → narrowing → Lipton bridged (climax) → mechanism → payoff; borrowed-not-earned block dropped; all source quotes verified against Williamson 9.2, Lipton Ch 4, Lipton Ch 9, and Floridi et al. - Built HYBRID talk deck at `Attachments/generating-philosophy-talk-deck-hybrid.html` (secret gist `103bc1ec9a1d895e46890f96e1d44348`) — the best-of-both version combining my sparse architecture with the competitor deck's targeted additions. 29 slides total (adds one §3 slide: Pigliucci's science/philosophy distinction now gets its own pair-comparison slide, separate from the Pigliucci axioms-quote reframe slide). Changes from the sparse v1: argument-unfolding slides (§1.5 payoff, §2.3 page, §2.6 corpus filtered, §2.7 §2 payoff, §3.5 reframe, §3.7 reply-through-cases, §4.2 prompt, §4.3 distillate, §4.4 Sellars) now use 2–3 short staccato ledes instead of one long flowing sentence — competitor-style rhythm without inflating content. Quote slides (§1.2 Davies, §2.4 Lipton, §3.2 Zahavy, §3.5 Pigliucci, §4.4 Sellars) keep a single framing lede + pullquote + attribution. Payoff and DIV slides keep a single lede (punch-landing moves, don't crowd). Specific borrows from competitor: §1.4 institutional norm now has three sub-beats (blind review / Dellsén / Sokal) rather than one crammed fig-note; §3.3 Chinese Rooms promoted from inline italic to standalone pullquote with "after harnad, 1990 · via zahavy" attribution; §3.4 Pigliucci science-vs-philosophy now a two-cell pair comparison; §3.6 sources list pairs each sub-discipline with its descriptor ("philosophy of perception · how things look"); close slide display changed from "No in-principle obstacle" to "The text is what philosophy evaluates" with the joint claim as a three-beat body ("corpus is what the LLM learns / what remains for the philosopher is to supply in the prompt / specific problem, committed position, pressure"). Word count per slide rises from ~30–60 to ~50–100 — measured staccato, not moves-deck density. Original sparse version preserved at `Attachments/generating-philosophy-talk-deck.html` (gist `5bd5477c658fdffcdf70548af5e545eb`) for comparison. Speaker notes still key to the v1 slide IDs; if you pick the hybrid as the final version I'll re-index the speaker notes to the 29-slide numbering. - Rebuilt talk deck in the sparse editorial style after your feedback that my first attempt kept moves-deck density: imported the full CSS + render architecture from `Downloads/generating-philosophy-deck.html` (iA Writer Quattro/Duospace/Mono, Flexoki dark, 60px display headings, left rail with eyebrow, redacted paper-card, filter-diagram, lift-SVG, venn-SVG, distillate-SVG, markers pills, sources list, pair comparison, pullquote+attribution) and replaced all content with the current moves-note material. New deck is 29 slides total (title + § 0 scene + 4 section dividers + 21 content scenes + close), each slide carrying a short display heading (8–15 words) plus one lede sentence OR a figure/pair/pullquote, not dense prose. Slide IDs now match the `01/29 … 29/29` counter top-right. Speaker notes at [[Generating Philosophy — Talk Speaker Notes (Lingnan–Genoa–Kobe, 2026-04-23)]] rewritten to match the new numbering with ON SCREEN / SAY / QUOTE / TIME / NOTE bullets per slide. Timing check lands at ~37.5 min of content, leaving ~2.5 min buffer. Gist `5bd5477c658fdffcdf70548af5e545eb` overwritten; live viewer unchanged. - Built talk deck + speaker notes for the 40-minute Thursday lecture: new HTML file at `Attachments/generating-philosophy-talk-deck.html` (distilled down from the 58-move private moves deck to 28 content slides across 5 sections plus title/dividers/close, built on the same template code and flexoki/iA Writer aesthetic, published to secret gist `5bd5477c658fdffcdf70548af5e545eb` with [▶ live viewer](https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://gist.githubusercontent.com/nickneek/5bd5477c658fdffcdf70548af5e545eb/raw/generating-philosophy-talk-deck.html)); new speaker notes at [[Generating Philosophy — Talk Speaker Notes (Lingnan–Genoa–Kobe, 2026-04-23)]] keyed to the deck's slide IDs (§ 0.1, §1.1 … §4.4), with per-slide ON SCREEN / SAY / QUOTE / TIME / NOTE entries in bullet form and a section-by-section timing check landing at ~41 min with two small compressions on the day to hit 40 flat. Slide-ID scheme section.slide (e.g. §2.4, §3.8) matches between deck HUD and speaker notes so you can glance at notes and know exactly which slide you're on. Kept the moves deck as-is for ongoing private review; the talk deck and speaker notes cross-link to it via frontmatter. - Comprehensive deck+note overhaul of [[Generating Philosophy with AI — Argument Moves (Lingnan–Genoa–Kobe, 2026-04-23)]] · [▶ live viewer](https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://gist.githubusercontent.com/nickneek/46ee19235716697d7000780ab3f3867e/raw/generating-philosophy-moves-deck.html) driven by your full review transcript. Backup saved at `Attachments/generating-philosophy-moves-deck.backup-2026-04-22.html`. §0 collapsed from 6 moves to 3 (dropped subtitle, fused old M2–4 into single "worth reading as common concept" move, replaced old M5–6 with the terse journals line, dropped "no theoretical apparatus" meta). §1 reworked into 12 moves/5 groups: old M3 demoted to sub-move of M2 with Kant/Turner examples; Davies given its own slide with the larger longform quote; "residue" removed throughout; old M7+M8 split into M6 (text-directed evaluation) + achievement-talk move + three separate moves for blind review, Dellsén's for-whom vs by-whom, and Sokal laid out in detail; payoff reframed from "constitutive fails / causal" to "constitutive does not hold up / capacity challenges for §§2–3" (explicit capacity framing for §2 abduction and §3 phenomenology). §2 expanded from 15 moves to 18: longer Floridi quote; Williamson move cites page numbers and spells out intrinsic virtues; M3 rewritten as capacity challenge (no more "causal shape"); "page is shared substrate" group renamed "the page" and "substrate" slogans replaced with substantive content; Lipton group expanded from 4 to 6 moves to give room to likeliness/loveliness, corpus non-arbitrariness, self-evaluation, both directions of the Lipton maxim, and inheritance of distillate; "how the LLM actually gets there" group renamed "the mechanism"; payoff split into two (quality claim + two-thread handoff). §3 expanded from 15 moves to 19: dropped histrionic "challenge §2 left untouched, one that looks harder"; Zahavy's worry split across three moves (including a direct block quote of his Einstein description); new move slotted in after Pigliucci showing how Einstein's case illustrates the verification distinction (thought experiment → hypothesis → Eddington/Mercury confirmation); reply adds literary sub-move (Proust, Woolf, James, Nabokov); "articulated propositions" jargon introduction dropped; limit reworked around "previously undiscovered aspect of phenomenology" with Merleau-Ponty's self-touch restored as the paradigm example; added §3 payoff in parallel form to §1/§2. §4 retitled "A Speculative Coda", expanded from 7 moves to 9: behind/before ring-comp dropped; "centre of mass" excised; "capacity and deployment come apart" / "prompting closes the gap" slogans replaced with substantive content on summary-vs-distinctive-argument and the prompt-target point; distillation group broken into three moves for clarity; full Sellars quote given as block sub-move; close rewritten as straight joint-claim putting §§1–4 together. Deck-wide arc beat ranges updated (§1 1–12, §2 1–18, §3 1–19, §4 1–9); "causal" replaced with "capacity" throughout deck-arc and section previews; all group headings stripped of meta ("making the intuition precise" → "Davies", "how the LLM actually gets there" → "the mechanism", "§1 payoff — what the section leaves on the table" → "§1 payoff"). - Added §4 (speculative coda) to [[Generating Philosophy with AI — Argument Moves (Lingnan–Genoa–Kobe, 2026-04-23)]] · [▶ live viewer](https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://gist.githubusercontent.com/nickneek/46ee19235716697d7000780ab3f3867e/raw/generating-philosophy-moves-deck.html) — "The Philosopher Before the Text", 7 moves in 5 groups. Puzzle (capacity present but output thin), capacity-vs-deployment (centre-of-mass diagnosis), the prompter runs the distillation (single move; unifies dialectical register and iterated IBE as one claim — the model is the distillate, not the distillation), generalist-not-specialist (Sellars breadth quote), ring-composition close (philosopher stands *before* not *behind* the text, mirroring §1). Light-touch §2 M15 extension: now names two untouched threads — phenomenology challenge (→§3) and distillate/distillation gap (→§4) — so §4 inherits the distinction cleanly without re-introducing it. Old "joint claim" CLOSE slide dropped; §4 M7 is now the terminal slide. - Eighth §3 pass on [[Generating Philosophy with AI — Argument Moves (Lingnan–Genoa–Kobe, 2026-04-23)]] · [▶ live viewer](https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://gist.githubusercontent.com/nickneek/46ee19235716697d7000780ab3f3867e/raw/generating-philosophy-moves-deck.html) — deck finally synced to note (compaction had left it at the old 16-move §3). M1 drops the "§2 showed that LLMs can make the moves" opener; M3 drops the awkward "Zahavy glosses the case in exactly these terms" quote-intro and collapses old M3+M4 into a single Zahavy+Harnad move; M6 drops "Pigliucci's response" (stops putting words in his mouth), now "Our response begins with an observation Pigliucci makes"; M9 reply uses analytic sub-disciplines (philosophy of perception, temporal experience, aesthetics, emotion) instead of Husserl/Merleau-Ponty/Sartre; M11 reframed as "an anecdatum of mine"; limit case (M13–15) abstracted — no Merleau-Ponty, just the general shape of originating new phenomenological description. §3 now 15 moves in 7 groups. Section preview beats re-ranged (challenge 1–5, Pigliucci 6–8, reply 9–12, limit 13–15); deck-arc §3 range 1–15. - Second §2 pass — 12 → 15 moves in 5 groups. Group 1 now 3 moves (charge, Williamson on philosophy-as-abductive, explicit causal shape: humans have capacity → can produce; LLMs lack capacity → cannot). Group 2 renamed "the page is the shared substrate" — strategy move dropped as metacommentary; 4 moves now argue the substrate identity: Floridi's admission on training-origin, philosophy-done-on-page (reasoning and evaluation both), LLM-trained-on-page, misfire. Group 3 (Lipton) gains a reflexivity move: corpus is self-evaluating via iterated philosophical criticism, so surviving patterns are loveliness-tracking. Group 4 drops bad "remaining question / grammar" opener; discourse markers now tied explicitly to the dialectical practice that produces them. Block quotes added: zeroth-order abduction quote in M1, training-origin quote in M4. Verified against the extracted sources. - Third §2 pass (after checking against April Enrico transcript) — §1 M11 rewritten in Enrico's framing ("grant that value lies in text but argue certain text-properties can be caused only by a human subject — abduction in §2, phenomenology in §3"); §2 M7 rewritten to stop putting words in Floridi's mouth ("no access to the arguer's head" was my gloss, not his claim) — now states the causal conclusion doesn't follow without pinning the framing on Floridi; §2 M13 and M14 drop "dialectical practice / dialectically-shaped markers" (pompous) for plainer back-and-forth phrasing; §2 M15's §3 teaser rewritten to match Enrico's parallel framing (§3 = phenomenology challenge, not "where content comes from"). ---