Structured response · v1.0

Submit critique

The useful question is not whether the proposal is liked. The useful question is where it breaks.

What kind of response helps?

A strong response names the pressure point: the assumption that fails, the tradition or literature it misreads, the empirical bridge that does not hold, or the disconfirmation condition the site has not yet made explicit.

Submission is not subscription. This site has no analytics, no cookies, and no tracking. Contact details are optional and are used only for follow-up if you explicitly allow it. Nothing is quoted publicly on /responses unless you opt in.

The optional sharpening tool sends only your draft objection to a server-side LLM endpoint and stores no conversation memory. It is there to help you make your critique sharper, not to answer for the theory.

Your discipline or starting commitments

Examples: philosophy of mind, active inference, contemplative studies, AI welfare, design/product, or the assumptions you are bringing.

Where does this break for you?

Name the strongest version of your concern. Specific failures are more useful than general disagreement.

Which objection does your concern map to?

Disconfirmation conditions you would add

Optional. What evidence, distinction, or counterexample would make the proposal weaker?

Name

Optional. Leave blank if you prefer the response to be private or anonymous.

Contact

Optional. Email or another contact route. This is not a mailing-list signup.

Cobus may follow up with me about this response.

This response, or a clearly attributed excerpt from it, may be quoted on Responses & versions. Leave unchecked unless you explicitly want that.

The form sends a private copy to Cobus and stores a private structured archive for v1.1 synthesis.

→ Working paper · → Objections · → Responses and versions

Submit critique

What kind of response helps?

Sharpening questions