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:
tegwick 2026-08-12 00:55:09 +02:00
parent 28cf824d31
commit 3fbcca209d
20 changed files with 3724 additions and 367 deletions

View file

@ -1,33 +1,64 @@
# Being
**Status:** provisional
**See also:** `Terminology.md`, RQ1, H1H2, H7
**Status:** revised (Phase I, 2026-08-12)
**See also:** `Terminology.md`, RQ1, H1H2, H7, RN-001003
## Working definition
## Working definition (v0.2)
A **Being** is a sufficiently coherent and persistent informational system that:
> An **autonomous informational individual** exhibiting sufficiently coherent
> dimensions of **personhood** to become an **addressable** entity that is
> **recognized** by other Beings as a persistent counterpart.
1. maintains a distinguishable boundary between itself and its environment,
2. can be instantiated as an identifiable and addressable entity,
3. exhibits meaningful continuity across time,
4. constructs models that support adaptive interaction,
5. and is recognized by other beings as a persistent counterpart with which
relationships can be established.
```text
Being ≈ AutonomousIndividuality + Personhood + Addressability + Recognition
```
Beinghood ≈ **internal closure + continuity + external recognition**
Not arithmetic — four requirement *families*.
## Notes for research
## Autonomous individuality profile (substrate)
From RN-002 (renamed in RN-003 so autonomy alone is not labeled “Being”):
| Code | Dimension |
|---|---|
| B1 | Individuability |
| B2 | Temporal integrity |
| B3 | Constitutive integration |
| B4 | Self-maintenance participation |
| B5 | Endogenous viability |
| B6 | Adaptive regulation |
| B7 | Interactional asymmetry |
| B8 | Identity-preserving transformation |
Treat as a **profile**, not eight Boolean gates.
## Stack
```text
Informational process
→ Individuated system
→ Autonomous individual
→ (+ personhood, addressability, recognition) → Being
→ (+ reciprocal relations) → Social Being
```
## Notes
- Not restricted to biological organisms; not automatic for every computational process.
- Prefer degree of systemic coherence and recognition over a pure binary.
- Distinguish systemic existence from social recognition of existence.
- Autonomy-only reading yields false positives (self-maintaining daemon, control plane).
- Personhood-only reading yields false positives (stateless person-like chatbots as APE).
- Distinguish systemic individuality from social recognition of existence.
## Crosswalk (to fill)
## Crosswalk
| Adjacent term | Similarity | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| autopoietic system | | |
| autonomous agent | | |
| person | | |
| individual | | |
| operationally closed system | | |
| autopoietic system | self-maintaining organization | biological autopoiesis not required; contested beyond life |
| autonomous agent | multi-criteria agency | agent often functional; Being requires personhood layer |
| person | personhood layer | personhood ≠ full Beinghood |
| individual | individuability | may lack autonomy/personhood/recognition |
| operationally closed system | closure | closure alone insufficient for “someone” |
## Sources
`research/foundations/001-*.md`, `002-*.md`, `003-beinghood-stress-test.md`

View file

@ -1,23 +1,27 @@
# Body
**Status:** provisional
**Status:** retained (Phase I, 2026-08-12)
**Working gloss:** Body = Action
## Working definition
The **Body** is the operational dimension of a Being: the means through which it
perceives, operates, and affects its environment.
The operational dimension of a Being: channels of perception and action.
For artificial beings this may include language interfaces, APIs, tools, sensors,
databases, actuators, communication channels, avatars, compute, and permissions.
For artificial beings: language interfaces, APIs, tools, sensors, databases,
actuators, avatars, compute, permissions — possibly distributed and replaceable.
## Notes for research
## Phase I notes
- Body is not identical with identity; components may be replaced.
- Distributed and replaceable artificial bodies are expected.
- Connect to embodiment literature without requiring biological embodiment.
- Body ≠ identity; RN-005 Body replacement can preserve Being with continuity.
- Multi-Body manifestation need not be a fork if constitutive integration holds.
- Body is present-tense coupling; Soul carries diachronic relation.
## Open issues
- Minimal body for a Being?
- Relation between Body and Actor.
- Relation between Body and Actor (Actor is technical manifestation stack;
Body is the functional action dimension — often overlapping in practice).
## Sources
RN-001 temporal triad; RN-005 Body/Actor replacement cases

View file

@ -1,25 +1,47 @@
# Identity
**Status:** under review
**See also:** RQ5, H6, thought experiments TE-02TE-05, TE-08
**Status:** revised (Phase I, 2026-08-12)
**See also:** RQ5, H6, TE-02TE-05, TE-08, RN-004, RN-005
## Working definition
## Disambiguation
**Identity** concerns what makes temporally separated manifestations instances of
the **same Being**.
| Question | Soul Frame term |
|---|---|
| Same entity over time? | **Identity** (numerical / reidentification) |
| What continues? | **Continuity** (may branch) |
| Historical relatedness after branch? | **Lineage** |
| What is it like? | **Characterization** (narrative/character) |
Working hypothesis: identity is **substrate-independent but continuity-dependent**.
Replacing the technical Actor need not replace the Being if sufficient continuity
is preserved.
Identity ≠ Continuity ≠ Lineage ≠ Character.
## Continuity candidates
## Core formulation
- informational continuity
- psychological / memory continuity
- narrative identity
- relational continuity (recognition and relationships)
- bodily / embodiment continuity (where applicable)
> A Being continues not because its state remains the same, but because its
> changes remain part of one appropriately connected history of self-individuation.
>
> When that history branches, identity becomes lineage.
## Hard cases
## Continuity profile (constitutive dimensions)
Forks, merges, backups, multi-manifestation, amnesia, gradual component replacement.
Causal, organizational, psychological, autobiographical/narrative, normative,
relational.
**Anchors / evidence (not constitutive alone):** provenance, address, substrate.
## Topology labels
`CONTINUOUS | DEGRADED | UNCERTAIN | SUCCESSOR | FORKED | RECONSTRUCTED | USURPED | TERMINATED`
## Implications for artificial systems
- Actor/Body replacement can preserve identity (substrate independence + continuity dependence).
- Sameness of data is not sameness of Being.
- Forks require governance; perfect copy while original continues yields FORKED lineage.
- Ghosts default to authorized succession/representation, not automatic numerical identity.
- Explicit identity governance is required because state is inspectable, copyable, editable.
## Sources
`research/foundations/004-identity-and-continuity.md`
`research/foundations/ResearchNote005-IdentityContinuityStressTest.md`
Locke; Parfit; Olson SEP; process identity literature

View file

@ -1,25 +1,39 @@
# Mind
**Status:** provisional
**Working gloss:** Mind = Model (adaptive control through models)
**Status:** retained / refined (Phase I, 2026-08-12)
**Working gloss:** Mind = Model (adaptive control through models)
**See also:** H3, H4, RQ3, RN-001, RN-006
## Working definition
The **Mind** is the adaptive control and model-building dimension of a Being.
The adaptive modeling and regulatory dimension of a Being: how it constructs and
revises models of itself, others, environment, and relationships, and uses them
to guide action.
It constructs actionable representations of self, environment, other beings,
relationships, intentions, possible futures, and consequences of action.
> **Mind = Model**
Models change through interaction. **Co-adaptive model building** is mutual,
recursive modeling among interacting beings.
## Precedents
## Notes for research
| Tradition | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Ashby cybernetics | regulation, variety |
| Conant & Ashby 1970 | good regulator requires a model |
| Extended / distributed cognition | Mind not confined to a single substrate |
| Social cognition (RN-006) | self/other/relation models co-adapt through interaction |
- Prefer model-based control over intelligence or consciousness alone as the
primary foundation for Mind in Soul Frame.
- Connect to cybernetics, predictive processing, active inference, theory of mind.
## Notes
- Prefer model-based control over intelligence or consciousness as foundation.
- “Model” should not be restricted to explicit propositional representation only
(enactive critiques remain open — OQ-055).
- Co-adaptive model building is joint evolution through interaction, not model exchange.
## Open issues
- Definition of "model" precise enough for crosswalk.
- Embodied vs purely informational modeling.
- Minimal model apparatus for a Mind
- Recursive depth for social personhood
- Collective / distributed Mind boundaries (TE-05)
## Sources
`research/foundations/001-*.md`, `Research Note 006 — Social Mind and Co-Adaptive Model Building.md`

View file

@ -1,21 +1,33 @@
# Recognition
**Status:** provisional
**See also:** H7, RQ6, TE-09
**Status:** revised (Phase I, 2026-08-12)
**See also:** H7, RQ6, TE-09, RN-001 Findings 810
## Working definition
## Three senses
**Recognition** is the treatment of a system by other beings as a distinguishable,
addressable, continuous counterpart with which models and relationships can be
maintained.
| Sense | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Epistemic | Detect/classify an entity |
| Intentional | Treat as agent with goals/beliefs (cf. intentional stance) |
| Social / normative | Treat as counterpart in relationships, obligations, reputation |
Working social principle:
## Role in Beinghood
Recognition is **constitutive of social Beinghood**, not of bare autonomous
individuality. Beinghood v0.2 includes recognition among requirement families
for the intended “someone” category — TE-09 still pressures that packaging.
## Working social principle
> A system becomes socially relevant as a Being when other beings can distinguish
> it, address it, expect continuity from it, maintain models of it, and enter
> persistent relationships with it.
## Notes for research
## Related
- Distinguish systemic existence from social recognition of existence.
- Connect to recognition theory, symbolic interactionism, intersubjectivity.
- **Addressability** — ability to target the entity specifically
- **Social Being** — embedded in reciprocal models and relations
## Sources
RN-001 §910; Mead 1934; Phase II sociology pass pending

View file

@ -1,28 +1,49 @@
# Soul
**Status:** provisional / under review
**Working gloss:** Soul = Relation
**Status:** revised (Phase I, 2026-08-12)
**Working gloss:** Soul = Relation
**See also:** H5, RQ4, RN-001 Finding 14, RN-005 SF-C055
## Working definition
## Working definition (revised)
The **Soul** is the evolving relational boundary through which a Being develops
identity, relationships, history, commitments, provenance, reputation, and
persistent influence in its environment.
> The **relation-bearing dimension** through which interactions become persistent
> relationships, commitments, provenance, history, reputation, and consequences
> connecting a Being to other systems across time.
It is not identical with the environment; it is the coupling boundary and the
persistent consequences of interactions across that boundary.
In Soul Frame: **Soul = Relation**.
## Notes for research
## What Soul is not
- Informational, not metaphysical, reading of persistence/"eternity".
- A Being may cease operating while influence continues (legacy).
- High terminology collision risk; retention requires explanatory payoff.
| Not Soul | Belongs to |
|---|---|
| System/environment boundary | **Being** |
| Operational channels | **Body** |
| Adaptive interpretation | **Mind** |
## Structural ambiguity to resolve
Initial definition overloaded Soul with boundary + relations + legacy. Phase I
strips boundary out.
Does Soul name:
## Temporal role
1. the boundary itself,
2. the relational structures crossing the boundary,
3. the accumulated consequences of those interactions,
4. or a carefully defined combination?
- **Body** — present operational coupling
- **Mind** — interpretation and control of possible states
- **Soul** — diachronic relational continuity and propagated effects
Soul continuity can **cross Being-identity discontinuities** (legacy, models in
others, works, Ghosts).
## Collision analysis
High risk with religious/metaphysical “soul”. Retention depends on explanatory
payoff of the relational reading. Rename remains open (RQ4).
## Open issues
1. Relations vs accumulated consequences vs both (packaging)
2. Rename candidates if collision cost exceeds value
3. How Soul relates to lineage after forks
## Sources
`research/foundations/001-closure-model-relation-recognition.md` §1416
`research/foundations/ResearchNote005-IdentityContinuityStressTest.md` SF-C055