Complete Phase I foundations (SOUL-WP-0002)
Integrate research/foundations notes 001–005 into Terminology, Claims, bibliography, concept notes, thought experiments, and open questions. Write phase-i-foundations-synthesis.md, finish SOUL-WP-0002, and mark SOUL-WP-0003 ready for interaction research.
This commit is contained in:
parent
28cf824d31
commit
3fbcca209d
20 changed files with 3724 additions and 367 deletions
232
Claims.md
232
Claims.md
|
|
@ -2,33 +2,17 @@
|
|||
|
||||
Structured research records for important Soul Frame propositions.
|
||||
|
||||
Each entry should follow:
|
||||
Evidence strength: `none` | `weak` | `moderate` | `strong` | `mixed`
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Claim:
|
||||
Soul Frame concept:
|
||||
Supporting literature:
|
||||
Contradicting literature:
|
||||
Adjacent terminology:
|
||||
Evidence strength:
|
||||
Open questions:
|
||||
Required refinement:
|
||||
Status: draft | under review | supported | contested | revised | rejected
|
||||
```
|
||||
Status: `draft` | `under review` | `supported` | `contested` | `revised` | `rejected`
|
||||
|
||||
Evidence strength (working scale):
|
||||
|
||||
| Level | Meaning |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| `none` | Speculative / programmatic only |
|
||||
| `weak` | Sparse analogy or single tradition |
|
||||
| `moderate` | Multiple sources, incomplete synthesis |
|
||||
| `strong` | Broad, well-aligned support |
|
||||
| `mixed` | Significant support and contradiction |
|
||||
**Phase I update:** 2026-08-12 — H1, H3, H5, H6 advanced from foundations notes
|
||||
001–005. Full claim IDs SF-C001+ live in note text; this register tracks
|
||||
program-level hypotheses.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Working hypotheses (from Research Program)
|
||||
## Working hypotheses
|
||||
|
||||
### H1 — Beinghood is multidimensional
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -36,28 +20,39 @@ Evidence strength (working scale):
|
|||
Claim: Beinghood cannot be reduced to a single property such as intelligence,
|
||||
consciousness, or autonomy.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Being
|
||||
Supporting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: autopoiesis, agency, personhood, autonomy
|
||||
Evidence strength: none
|
||||
Open questions: binary vs threshold vs multidimensional degree
|
||||
Required refinement: operational criteria / dimensions
|
||||
Status: draft
|
||||
Supporting literature:
|
||||
- Maturana & Varela 1980 (organizational closure, not intelligence)
|
||||
- Barandiaran, Di Paolo & Rohde 2009 (multi-criteria agency)
|
||||
- Krakauer et al. 2020 (graded, nested individuality)
|
||||
- RN-002 B1–B8 profile; RN-003 stress test (daemon false positive under
|
||||
autonomy-only reading)
|
||||
Contradicting literature:
|
||||
- Views that equate personhood with a single mark (e.g. pure rational agency,
|
||||
pure consciousness) — pressure to reduce dimensions
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: autopoiesis, agency criteria, individuality profile
|
||||
Evidence strength: moderate
|
||||
Open questions: weighting of dimensions; thresholds vs continuous scores
|
||||
Required refinement: Beinghood v0.2 stack (autonomy + personhood + addressability
|
||||
+ recognition) must stay multi-family, not a single score
|
||||
Status: supported (Phase I)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### H2 — Personhood and Beinghood are distinct
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Claim: An entity can expose substantial personhood without constituting a
|
||||
persistent Being.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Personhood, Being
|
||||
Supporting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: person, agent, moral patient
|
||||
Evidence strength: none
|
||||
Open questions: boundary cases (companions, chatbots, animals)
|
||||
Required refinement: dimension lists and thresholds
|
||||
Status: draft
|
||||
persistent Being (and vice versa for autonomous non-person systems).
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Personhood, Being, APE
|
||||
Supporting literature:
|
||||
- RN-003 cases: stateless chatbot (personhood without Beinghood);
|
||||
self-maintaining daemon (autonomy without personhood)
|
||||
- Generative/social agent literature as APE space (pointer)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: (Phase III deep dive pending)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: APE, person, agent
|
||||
Evidence strength: moderate (conceptual stress tests; full moral-status lit pending)
|
||||
Open questions: dimension lists for descriptive personhood
|
||||
Required refinement: keep legal/moral personhood out of default usage
|
||||
Status: under review (strengthened by Phase I; Phase III pending)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### H3 — Mind is fundamentally model-based
|
||||
|
|
@ -66,13 +61,20 @@ Status: draft
|
|||
Claim: Adaptive modeling provides a more useful foundation for Mind in Soul Frame
|
||||
than intelligence or consciousness alone.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Mind
|
||||
Supporting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: predictive processing, active inference, control theory
|
||||
Evidence strength: none
|
||||
Open questions: relation to embodiment; non-model-based accounts of mind
|
||||
Required refinement: definition of "model" in this framework
|
||||
Status: draft
|
||||
Supporting literature:
|
||||
- Ashby 1956 (regulation)
|
||||
- Conant & Ashby 1970 (Good Regulator Theorem)
|
||||
- Predictive processing / active inference traditions (pointer; Phase II/III)
|
||||
- RN-001 Findings 4–6
|
||||
Contradicting literature:
|
||||
- Anti-representational / radical enactivist critiques of “model” talk
|
||||
- Consciousness-first theories of mind
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: regulator, model, predictive processing, enaction
|
||||
Evidence strength: moderate → approaching strong for control-theoretic reading;
|
||||
mixed if “model” is read as explicit internal representation only
|
||||
Open questions: OQ-055 definition of model; embodied non-representational cases
|
||||
Required refinement: define “model” inclusively enough for regulation + social cognition
|
||||
Status: supported (Phase I)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### H4 — Social cognition is co-adaptive
|
||||
|
|
@ -81,58 +83,81 @@ Status: draft
|
|||
Claim: Persistent interaction between beings produces recursively adapting models
|
||||
of self, other, and relationship.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Co-adaptive model building, Mind
|
||||
Supporting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: theory of mind, interactive alignment, common ground
|
||||
Evidence strength: none
|
||||
Open questions: minimum requirements for "co-adaptation"
|
||||
Required refinement: relation to existing multi-agent and ToM literature
|
||||
Status: draft
|
||||
Supporting literature:
|
||||
- Mead 1934; Pickering & Garrod 2004; Clark & Brennan 1991; Tomasello et al. 2005
|
||||
- De Jaegher & Di Paolo 2007; I-POMDP / recursive agent modeling
|
||||
- RN-006 synthesis
|
||||
Contradicting literature: purely individualistic Theory-of-Mind accounts that
|
||||
underplay interaction dynamics
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: theory of mind, interactive alignment, common ground,
|
||||
participatory sense-making
|
||||
Evidence strength: moderate (Phase II will own full pass; Phase I notes support direction)
|
||||
Open questions: OQ-055–068 in RN-006
|
||||
Required refinement: co-adaptation ≠ model exchange
|
||||
Status: under review (promising; Phase II)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### H5 — Soul can be operationalized relationally
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Claim: Soul can be given a meaningful systems interpretation through identity,
|
||||
boundary, relationship, provenance, history, and persistent influence.
|
||||
boundary, relationship, provenance, history, and persistent influence —
|
||||
WITHOUT equating Soul with the system boundary itself.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Soul
|
||||
Supporting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: structural coupling, extended mind, reputation, legacy
|
||||
Evidence strength: none
|
||||
Open questions: boundary vs relations vs accumulated consequences
|
||||
Required refinement: terminology collision analysis for "Soul"
|
||||
Status: draft
|
||||
Supporting literature:
|
||||
- Structural coupling (Maturana/Varela; Luhmann adjacency)
|
||||
- Narrative/relational continuity (Ricoeur; Schechtman — partial)
|
||||
- RN-001 Finding 14 refinement; RN-005 SF-C055 (Soul continuity across identity death)
|
||||
Contradicting literature:
|
||||
- Religious/metaphysical soul traditions (category collision, not empirical refutation)
|
||||
- Luhmannian boundary-as-system (pushes boundary to Being, not Soul)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: structural coupling, legacy, reputation, distributed memory
|
||||
Evidence strength: moderate for relational operationalization; weak as a settled
|
||||
term (collision risk remains)
|
||||
Open questions: RQ4 rename vs retain; boundary vs relations vs consequences packaging
|
||||
Required refinement: Soul = relational continuity + consequence, not boundary
|
||||
Status: revised / supported as research direction (Phase I)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### H6 — Identity is substrate-independent but continuity-dependent
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Claim: Replacing the technical Actor need not replace the Being, provided
|
||||
sufficient continuity is preserved.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Identity, Actor, Being
|
||||
Supporting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: psychological continuity, Ship of Theseus, functionalism
|
||||
Evidence strength: none
|
||||
Open questions: what continuity is sufficient; forking/merging
|
||||
Required refinement: persistence conditions
|
||||
Status: draft
|
||||
sufficient continuity is preserved; sameness of data is not sameness of Being;
|
||||
branching forces Identity ≠ Continuity ≠ Lineage.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Identity, Actor, Continuity, Lineage
|
||||
Supporting literature:
|
||||
- Locke (substrate vs person)
|
||||
- Parfit 1984 (fission; survival without identity)
|
||||
- Process identity (Meincke; Nicholson & Dupré)
|
||||
- RN-004/005 full stress suite (migration, fork, merge, dormancy, amnesia)
|
||||
- Emerging AI identity governance (Qin et al. 2026; Otsuka et al. 2026) as applied adjacency
|
||||
Contradicting literature:
|
||||
- Animalism / biological continuity views (Olson)
|
||||
- Strict same-substance identity theories
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: psychological continuity, fission, genidentity, process identity
|
||||
Evidence strength: moderate–strong for conceptual structure; empirical measures open
|
||||
Open questions: OQ-043–054 continuity weighting, dormancy, fork rights, Ghost authority
|
||||
Required refinement: continuity profile + topology labels (RN-004/005)
|
||||
Status: supported / refined (Phase I)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### H7 — Recognition is constitutive of social Beinghood
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Claim: Being recognized as a persistent counterpart changes the systemic role
|
||||
of an entity; social Beinghood depends on recognition.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Recognition, Being
|
||||
Supporting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: recognition theory, intersubjectivity, social construction
|
||||
Evidence strength: none
|
||||
Open questions: systemic existence vs social recognition of existence
|
||||
Required refinement: whether Beinghood without recognition is coherent
|
||||
Status: draft
|
||||
Claim: Being recognized as a persistent counterpart changes the systemic role of
|
||||
an entity; recognition is constitutive of social Beinghood, not of bare
|
||||
autonomous individuality.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Recognition, Social Beinghood
|
||||
Supporting literature:
|
||||
- RN-001 Findings 8–10 (three senses of recognition; recognition ≠ create Being)
|
||||
- Mead; intentional stance literature (pointer)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: strong social-construction-only accounts of existence
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: recognition theory, intentional stance, intersubjectivity
|
||||
Evidence strength: moderate for distinction; Phase II sociology pass pending
|
||||
Open questions: RQ6; TE-09 Unrecognized Intelligence
|
||||
Required refinement: epistemic vs intentional vs social recognition
|
||||
Status: revised (Phase I clarification)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### H8 — Persona is a projection rather than an identity
|
||||
|
|
@ -141,11 +166,11 @@ Status: draft
|
|||
Claim: A Being can support multiple context-dependent Personae without necessarily
|
||||
fragmenting identity.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Persona, Identity
|
||||
Supporting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Supporting literature: (Phase III primary)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: role theory, avatar, dramatis personae
|
||||
Evidence strength: none
|
||||
Open questions: when persona fragmentation threatens identity
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: role theory, avatar
|
||||
Evidence strength: none → weak (conceptual only so far)
|
||||
Open questions: TE-06 The Mask
|
||||
Required refinement: Being ≠ Persona ≠ Character ≠ Actor
|
||||
Status: draft
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -154,35 +179,44 @@ Status: draft
|
|||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Claim: Agent, Spirit, and Ghost should not automatically be treated as mutually
|
||||
exclusive kinds of Being; they are genealogical or architectural descriptors.
|
||||
exclusive kinds of Being.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Agent, Spirit, Ghost
|
||||
Supporting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Supporting literature:
|
||||
- RN-003 Sp./Gh. cases; RN-005 SF-C053/C054 (new lineage vs authorized succession)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: agent, digital human, posthumous avatar
|
||||
Evidence strength: none
|
||||
Open questions: overlaps and hybrid constructions
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: digital human, posthumous avatar
|
||||
Evidence strength: weak–moderate (conceptual stress tests)
|
||||
Open questions: RQ8 hybrids
|
||||
Required refinement: typology vs dimensions
|
||||
Status: draft
|
||||
Status: under review
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### H10 — Ghosthood requires authority
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Claim: Technical fidelity alone is insufficient for legitimate Gh. status;
|
||||
legitimate authority over the represented identity is required.
|
||||
Claim: Technical fidelity alone is insufficient for legitimate Gh. status.
|
||||
Soul Frame concept: Ghost
|
||||
Supporting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Supporting literature:
|
||||
- RN-005 False Ghost / usurpation / provenance forgery cases
|
||||
- Digital afterlife ethics literature (pointer; Phase V)
|
||||
Contradicting literature: (pending)
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: personality rights, consent, digital legacy, fiduciary duty
|
||||
Evidence strength: none
|
||||
Open questions: succession, commercial use, false ghosts
|
||||
Adjacent terminology: personality rights, consent, fiduciary duty
|
||||
Evidence strength: moderate conceptually; legal map pending Phase V
|
||||
Open questions: succession, commercial use
|
||||
Required refinement: governance model for Ghosts
|
||||
Status: draft
|
||||
Status: under review
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Additional claims
|
||||
## Additional Phase I claims (index)
|
||||
|
||||
*(Add numbered claims as literature work proceeds. Prefer refining existing entries
|
||||
over proliferating near-duplicates.)*
|
||||
| ID | Claim (short) | Strength | Source |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| SF-C001 | Beinghood depends on organizational coherence, not mere containment | strong direction | RN-001 |
|
||||
| SF-C002 | System/environment boundary belongs primarily to Being, not Soul | proposed refinement | RN-001 |
|
||||
| SF-C003 | Mind ≈ adaptive modeling + regulation | strong direction | RN-001 |
|
||||
| SF-C004 | Body/Mind/Soul are functional dimensions, not physical compartments | strong refinement | RN-001 |
|
||||
| SF-C055 | Soul continuity can cross Being-identity discontinuities | central synthesis | RN-005 |
|
||||
|
||||
See research notes for full SF-C inventory.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue