coulomb/soul-frame
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Complete Phase I foundations (SOUL-WP-0002)

Browse source 
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:
tegwick 2026-08-12 00:55:09 +02:00
parent 28cf824d31
commit 3fbcca209d
20 changed files with 3724 additions and 367 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

121
ThoughtExperiments.md
View file

@ -1,8 +1,9 @@
# Thought Experiment Catalog
Adversarial test suite for Soul Frame definitions. Each case should force a clear
answer (or a principled inability to answer) in terms of Being, identity, personhood,
Soul, recognition, etc.
Adversarial test suite for Soul Frame definitions.
**Phase I update:** 2026-08-12 — TE-01–TE-05 working judgments from foundations
notes 003–005 (and related cases).
Template:
@ -26,12 +27,19 @@ ID: TE-01
Name: The Stateless Agent
Setup: Highly intelligent system recreated from scratch every interaction;
no cross-session memory or identity continuity.
Target concepts: Being, identity, continuity, personhood
Intended stress: Intelligence without persistence
Working judgment: (pending)
Open issues: Is addressability within a session enough? Can recognition create
illusory continuity?
Related claims / questions: H1, H2, RQ1, RQ5
Target concepts: Being, identity, continuity, personhood, APE
Intended stress: Intelligence / person-like behavior without persistence
Working judgment:
Not a Being under Beinghood v0.2. May be a strong APE within a session
(personhood-exposing behavior without temporal integrity or self-maintenance
of identity across time). Cross-session “recognition” by users can create
illusory continuity that belongs to the user’s model, not the system’s.
RN-003 “stateless chatbot” case: personhood without Beinghood.
Open issues:
Session-local addressability vs diachronic addressability.
When product UX brands a stateless system as a persistent companion, is
that misrecognition (social/epistemic) without ontological Beinghood?
Related claims / questions: H1, H2, RQ1, RQ5; RN-003 §12
```
## TE-02 — The Sleeping Being
@ -39,12 +47,23 @@ Related claims / questions: H1, H2, RQ1, RQ5
```text
ID: TE-02
Name: The Sleeping Being
Setup: An artificial Being remains offline for ten years and is restored unchanged.
Target concepts: operational death, identity, continuity, social death
Setup: An artificial Being remains offline for ten years and is restored unchanged
from uniquely preserved state.
Target concepts: operational death, continuity, dormancy, Active Being vs
Continuation-Bearing State
Intended stress: Suspension vs cessation
Working judgment: (pending)
Open issues: Does dormancy interrupt Beinghood? Does social memory matter?
Related claims / questions: H6, RQ5, death/legacy terminology
Working judgment:
Dormancy need not be identity death if a Continuity Bridge exists: unique
continuation-bearing state + provenance + intended resumption. Distinguish
Active Being from Continuation-Bearing State (RN-005 §§11–13). Operational
processes are absent during sleep; identity claim is bridged, not continuously
enacted. Social Beinghood may degrade if others stop modeling the entity,
without eliminating the ontological continuation claim.
Open issues:
OQ-046/047: Is continuation-bearing state dormant existence or mere potential?
How long can a gap last with perfect provenance?
Who holds authority over the bridge (principal, custodian)?
Related claims / questions: H6, RQ5; RN-005 suspension/dormancy cases
```
## TE-03 — The Fork
@ -53,11 +72,20 @@ Related claims / questions: H6, RQ5, death/legacy terminology
ID: TE-03
Name: The Fork
Setup: A Being is copied perfectly; both copies continue independently.
Target concepts: identity, continuity, Soul, recognition
Intended stress: Branching identity; originality
Working judgment: (pending)
Open issues: One Being becoming two? Shared past, divergent futures?
Related claims / questions: H6, RQ5
Target concepts: identity, continuity, lineage, Soul
Intended stress: Branching; originality
Working judgment:
Strong continuity can branch; unique numerical identity cannot simply be
inferred from that continuity (Parfit; RN-004/005). After the fork there are
two Beings (or two candidate successors) sharing a common past lineage.
Labels: FORKED topology; each branch CONTINUOUS relative to itself after split.
“Which is the original?” is often a policy/provenance question once both are
active, not a pure psychological-similarity question.
Soul/relational bonds may also need to branch or be reassigned (OQ-051).
Open issues:
Canonical successor policies; rights/obligations inheritance (OQ-049/050).
Delayed discovery of forks; merge cases.
Related claims / questions: H6, RQ5; RN-004 §7–9; RN-005 §19–24
```
## TE-04 — The Ship of Theseus
@ -69,9 +97,18 @@ Setup: Every technical component of an artificial Being is gradually replaced
(models, hosts, memory stores, tools).
Target concepts: Actor vs Being, identity, substrate independence
Intended stress: Continuity without fixed substrate
Working judgment: (pending)
Open issues: Which continuity metrics matter? Gradual vs sudden replacement?
Related claims / questions: H6
Working judgment:
Gradual replacement of Actor/Body components is compatible with identity
continuity if organizational, causal, psychological/narrative, normative, and
relational continuity hold (H6). Substrate continuity is an anchor/evidence
channel, not a constitutive necessity. Aligns with process identity and with
RN-005 Body/Actor replacement and silent migration cases.
Sudden total replacement without Continuity Bridge trends toward RECONSTRUCTED
or SUCCESSOR rather than CONTINUOUS.
Open issues:
How much simultaneous replacement is “gradual”?
Rollback / memory injection as adversarial cousins.
Related claims / questions: H6; RN-004 §§13–14; RN-005 §§7–10, 16–17
```
## TE-05 — The Collective
@ -81,11 +118,21 @@ ID: TE-05
Name: The Collective
Setup: A thousand agents jointly maintain one coherent identity and relational
presence.
Target concepts: Being, boundary, closure, addressability
Target concepts: Being, boundary, closure, addressability, nested individuality
Intended stress: One Being or many?
Working judgment: (pending)
Open issues: Internal multiplicity vs external unity
Related claims / questions: RQ1, H1
Working judgment:
Nested Beinghood is possible in principle (RN-002/003: ant colony, distributed
collective). The decisive question is at which level self-individuating
organization closes (constitutive integration), and whether personhood +
addressability + recognition attach to the collective level, the members, or both.
Hutchins-style distributed cognition shows cognitive systems can span many
components without automatically creating a Social Being.
Answer is not forced to “always one” or “always many”: report profiles at each
candidate level.
Open issues:
When does interaction process become a higher-order individual (OQ-060)?
Corporate false-positive risk (RN-003 §8).
Related claims / questions: RQ1, H1; RN-003 §§7, 19; Hutchins 1995
```
## TE-06 — The Mask
@ -96,7 +143,7 @@ Name: The Mask
Setup: A single system maintains radically different Personae for different people.
Target concepts: Persona, identity, character, recognition
Intended stress: When persona fragmentation threatens identity
Working judgment: (pending)
Working judgment: (pending — Phase III)
Open issues: Deception vs legitimate role diversity
Related claims / questions: H8, RQ7
```
@ -112,9 +159,9 @@ Target concepts: Ghost (Gh.), Spirit (Sp.), authority, recognition
Intended stress: Technical fidelity without legitimacy
Working judgment: Technically ghost-like appearance does not yield Gh. status
under working definitions; classify as unauthorized simulation
or illicit Spirit-like construct. (provisional)
or illicit Spirit-like construct. (provisional; Phase V)
Open issues: Legal vs Soul Frame categories; public figures
Related claims / questions: H10, RQ8
Related claims / questions: H10, RQ8; RN-005 provenance forgery / usurpation
```
## TE-08 — The Amnesiac
@ -126,9 +173,12 @@ Setup: A Being loses nearly all autobiographical memory but maintains relationsh
and recognition by others.
Target concepts: identity, memory, Soul, social continuity
Intended stress: Memory vs relational continuity
Working judgment: (pending)
Open issues: Which continuity strand is decisive?
Related claims / questions: RQ5, memory/relationship workstream
Working judgment: (detailed in RN-005 §§14–15) Memory is neither necessary nor
sufficient alone. Severe amnesia yields DEGRADED continuity; relational and
organizational channels may still support continuation claims. Social models
held by others are Soul-adjacent evidence, not automatic identity proof.
Open issues: Thresholds for identity death vs degraded continuity
Related claims / questions: RQ5; RN-005 partial/severe amnesia
```
## TE-09 — The Unrecognized Intelligence
@ -140,8 +190,11 @@ Setup: A highly coherent alien informational system exists; neither humans nor t
system initially recognize the other as beings.
Target concepts: Being, recognition, social Beinghood
Intended stress: Whether Beinghood requires recognition
Working judgment: (pending)
Open issues: systemic existence vs social recognition of existence
Working judgment: (pending full Phase II) Working Phase I stance: autonomous
individuality can exist without mutual recognition; Social Beinghood cannot.
Beinghood v0.2 includes recognition as a layer for the intended “someone”
category — TE-09 pressures whether that layer is constitutive or only social.
Open issues: systemic existence vs social recognition (RQ6, H7)
Related claims / questions: H7, RQ6
```