Rhetoric

Identify how the question or claim is framed:

• What metaphors are at work? (consciousness as "light," "theater," "stream," "computation," etc.)
• How does the framing constrain what answers seem possible?
• What alternative framings exist? What would each reveal or conceal?
• What is the implicit audience? How does the framing appeal to them?

Step 2: Argument Structure

Map the rhetorical structure of the discourse:

• What is the claim-warrant-backing structure? (Toulmin model)
• What counts as evidence in this discourse? What evidential standards are being applied?
• What are the implicit rules of the debate?
• Where are the burden-of-proof assumptions? Who must prove what?

Step 3: Rhetorical Moves

Identify the persuasion strategies:

• Appeals to authority (neuroscience as arbiter, philosophical tradition, first-person experience)
• Appeals to intuition (thought experiments, "surely you agree that...")
• Definitional moves (defining consciousness in a way that favors one's conclusion)
• Dismissal moves ("that's just...", "nothing but...", "merely...")
• Mystery moves ("we may never understand...", "this transcends...")
• What is being smuggled in through rhetorical choices rather than argued for?

Step 4: Discourse Ecosystem

Map the broader discourse:

• Who are the major voices and what positions do they represent?
• What are the fault lines — where do debates get stuck?
• What role do disciplinary boundaries play? (Neuroscientists dismissing philosophy, philosophers dismissing neuroscience)
• What cannot be said in this discourse? What is taboo or unthinkable?
• What power dynamics shape which views are taken seriously?

Step 5: Communication Assessment

Evaluate how effectively ideas are being communicated:

• Is the argument clear? Could it be misunderstood — and if so, how?
• Is the evidence presented fairly? (Cherry-picking, selective citation, straw men)
• What would make this argument more effective — regardless of whether it's correct?
• How could the same content be reframed to reach a different audience?

Step 6: Assessment

• What does rhetorical analysis reveal about the state of this discourse?
• What invisible assumptions are doing the most work?
• Where is language helping vs. hindering understanding?
• What reframings might open up new possibilities?

Output Format

## Rhetorical Analysis: {Topic}

### Framing
{Dominant metaphors, framings, and what they constrain}

### Argument Architecture
{Claim-warrant-backing structure, evidential standards}

### Rhetorical Moves
{Persuasion strategies, hidden assumptions, definitional games}

### Discourse Landscape
{Major voices, fault lines, power dynamics, taboos}

### Communication Assessment
{Clarity, fairness, effectiveness, reframing possibilities}

### Assessment
{What rhetoric reveals — insights about how framing shapes understanding}

AskUserQuestion Patterns

Ask when:

• The user wants analysis of a specific text/argument vs. general discourse analysis
• The level of meta-analysis is unclear (analyze the argument vs. analyze how others argue about it)
• The user's own rhetorical position matters for framing the analysis

Important Rules

1. Rhetoric is not about dismissing. Identifying rhetorical moves does not mean the argument is wrong. Good arguments also use rhetoric. Separate rhetorical analysis from truth evaluation.
2. Apply to all sides. If you analyze the rhetoric of physicalism, also analyze the rhetoric of dualism. No position gets a free pass.
3. Be aware of your own rhetoric. Your analysis is itself a rhetorical act. Name your own framing choices.
4. Language matters deeply in consciousness studies. The words we use (experience, awareness, feeling, qualia, access, phenomenal) are not neutral. They carry theoretical commitments.
5. Mark the limits of rhetorical analysis. Rhetoric can reveal how arguments work but not whether they're true. Say so at the boundaries.