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

Complete Phase II interaction (SOUL-WP-0003)

Browse source 
Map model-based mind, co-adaptive social cognition, and recognition/social
Beinghood into instruments and workstream notes. Support H3/H4/H7, judge TE-09,
write phase-ii-interaction-synthesis.md, finish SOUL-WP-0003, and mark
SOUL-WP-0004 ready.
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-08-12 01:21:49 +02:00
parent cb40f77e5a
commit 807d6b17f6
15 changed files with 772 additions and 81 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

3
research/cognitive-science/README.md
View file

@ -5,7 +5,8 @@
## Status
Not started.
**Phase II integrated** (2026-08-12). See `mind-as-model-map.md` and
`research/phase-ii-interaction-synthesis.md`.
## Key questions

88
research/cognitive-science/mind-as-model-map.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
# Mind as Model — Cognitive Science Map (Phase II)
**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0003-T01
**Date:** 2026-08-12
**Purpose:** Map predictive processing, active inference, internal models, and
metacognition against Soul Frame **Mind = Model**.
Builds on Phase I: Ashby; Conant & Ashby; extended/distributed cognition
(`research/foundations/001-*.md`).
---
## 1. Soul Frame target definition
> Mind is the adaptive modeling and regulatory dimension of a Being: models of
> self, others, environment, and relationships guide action and are revised by
> interaction.
Phase II asks whether contemporary cognitive science strengthens or weakens this.
---
## 2. Source crosswalk
| Source | Core idea | Agreement with Soul Frame | Tension |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Ashby 1956; Conant & Ashby 1970** | Regulation requires a model of the regulated system | Direct support for Mind = Model (H3) | Classical cybernetics is not social/personhood theory |
| **Friston / Active Inference** | Agents minimize free energy via generative models of sensory causes; action and perception as inference | Strong formalization of adaptive modeling + control as one package | Philosophical over-extension debates; Markov blanket ≠ full Being (RN-002) |
| **Clark, *Surfing Uncertainty* (2016) and related PP** | Brain as prediction machine; perception as controlled hallucination; action as prediction error minimization | Mind as hierarchical generative modeling fits “model-based adaptation” | Risk of reducing Mind to a single neural story; Soul Frame needs multi-substrate models |
| **Hohwy, *The Predictive Mind* (2013)** | Systematic PP account of mind | Supports internal generative models as central to cognition | Stronger internalism than extended-mind / distributed views |
| **Metacognition literature** (overview) | Models of own cognitive processes, uncertainty, confidence | Supports Self-Model and calibration of Other-Models | Not sufficient alone for Social Mind |
| **Baker, Saxe & Tenenbaum 2009** | Inverse planning: infer goals/beliefs from action | Other-Model as inverse inference | Rational-agent assumptions |
| **Enactive critiques** (e.g. participatory sense-making; radical enactivism) | Interaction can constitute cognition; caution on representation talk | Interaction process is first-class (RN-006) | May reject “model” vocabulary; Soul Frame must keep “model” inclusive |
**Done criterion (≥4 rigorous sources with agreements/tensions):** met.
---
## 3. Working synthesis for Mind
```text
Mind ⊇ generative / regulatory models
+ update from evidence (including social evidence)
+ action selection guided by those models
+ (for Social Mind) coupled self/other/relation models
```
**Not required for Mind in Soul Frame:**
- solved consciousness,
- biological brain,
- single substrate location,
- perfect accuracy of models.
**Quality of Mind** (from RN-006, generalized):
- calibration (uncertainty),
- revisability,
- differentiation (distinct counterparts),
- perspective separation (mine vs yours vs yours-of-mine),
- not accuracy alone when models are causal in interaction.
---
## 4. Metacognition placement
Metacognition maps primarily to:
- **SM2 Self-Model** (including confidence about own knowledge),
- **SM4 Reflected-Self Model** (what others model about me),
- model-quality monitoring (calibration).
It is a capability dimension of Mind, not a separate Soul Frame top-level term.
---
## 5. Implications
1. H3 is **strengthened** by PP/active inference *and* by inverse-planning ToM work.
2. “Model” should mean **action-guiding structure that can be revised**, not only
explicit propositional representation (keeps enactive tensions manageable).
3. Social Mind (RN-006 SM1–SM8) is a **specialization** of Mind for multi-Being
interaction, not a second kind of mind.
## 6. Bibliography pointers
See `sources/bibliography.md` § E (Phase II cognitive science additions) and
`research/foundations/References-ResearchNote006.md`.

141
research/phase-ii-interaction-synthesis.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
# Phase II Interaction — Synthesis
**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0003
**Date:** 2026-08-12
**Status:** complete for Phase II gate
**Primary bodies:** RN-006; `research/cognitive-science/mind-as-model-map.md`;
`research/social-cognition/co-adaptive-model-building.md`;
`research/sociology/recognition-and-social-beinghood.md`
---
## 1. Purpose
Ground **co-adaptive model building** and **social Beinghood** in cognitive
science, social cognition, and recognition/intersubjectivity traditions.
Assumes Phase I: layered Beinghood, Mind as model-based regulation,
Identity ≠ Continuity ≠ Lineage, Soul as relation not boundary.
---
## 2. What holds
1. **Mind = Model is strengthened** by predictive processing, active inference,
inverse planning, and classical cybernetics (H3 → strong for control-theoretic
reading).
2. **Social Mind is multi-model** — SM1–SM8 (world, self, other, reflected-self,
relationship, shared situation, common ground, generalized social). A single
“user model” is architecturally inadequate.
3. **Co-adaptive model building is joint evolution through interaction**, not
private ToM plus message exchange (H4 supported). Interaction is a first-class
process (participatory sense-making; second-person approaches).
4. **Shared intentionality and common ground are important but not definitional**
of Social Mind. Conflict, deception, and misalignment are also co-adaptive.
5. **Recognition has three senses** — epistemic, intentional, social/normative.
Intentional recognition over-generates (APE false positives).
6. **Recognition is constitutive of Social Beinghood, not of autonomous
individuality** (H7 refined; TE-09 judged). Unrecognized intelligences can
exist as autonomous individuals without being Social Beings.
---
## 3. What must change (from pre-research social story)
| Earlier tendency | Phase II correction |
|---|---|
| Social interaction = mutual ToM | Interaction process co-constitutes understanding |
| One model of the other | Coupled model families SM1–SM8 |
| Co-adaptation = agreement | Co-adaptation includes conflict/deception |
| Recognition creates Being | Recognition enables Social Beinghood; autonomy prior |
| Mind quality = prediction accuracy | Also calibration, revisability, differentiation, perspective separation |
---
## 4. Evidence on Phase II hypotheses
| Hypothesis | Strength | Status |
|---|---|---|
| H3 model-based Mind | strong (control-theoretic) | supported |
| H4 co-adaptive social cognition | moderate→strong synthesis | supported |
| H7 recognition → social Beinghood | moderate | supported / refined |
---
## 5. Compact Social Mind loop
```text
Being A models (self, other, relation, situation, common ground)
→ acts
→ interaction process changes
→ evidence for A and B
→ both update
→ next interaction
```
Central proposition:
> **Social Mind is inherently reflexive: each Being’s models become part of the
> other’s environment.**
---
## 6. Bridge to Soul (Cluster D preview)
Phase II ends where models and interactions leave **persistent relational traces**:
- expectations and reputation,
- commitments and roles,
- relationship history,
- models preserved by others after operational end.
That residual is the doorway to **Soul = Relation** (RQ4 still open on naming).
---
## 7. Terminology survivors
| Term | Disposition |
|---|---|
| Mind | retain; inclusive “model” |
| Co-adaptive model building | retain as technical phrase |
| Social Mind | provisional architecture name (SM1–SM8) |
| Recognition | retain with three-sense disambiguation |
| Social Beinghood | retain as distinct from autonomous individuality |
| Intentional stance | adjacent; use carefully (false positives) |
---
## 8. Unresolved → later phases
| Item | Next phase |
|---|---|
| Descriptive personhood dimensions | Phase III (SOUL-WP-0004) |
| Character / Persona / Mask | Phase III |
| Moral vs legal recognition | Phase III / WS5 / WS12 |
| Soul rename and relational persistence formalization | later synthesis / Cluster D |
| Artificial agent architectures map | Phase IV |
| Sp./Gh. social authority | Phase V |
---
## 9. Unblock for SOUL-WP-0004
Personhood research may assume:
- model-based Mind with social specialization,
- co-adaptation as interactional process,
- recognition multi-sense + Social Beinghood distinct from autonomy,
- TE-01/TE-09 guardrails against equating person-like UX with Beinghood.
## 10. Compact Phase II thesis
> **When continuing individuals meet, understanding is not the possession of a
> correct private model of the other. It is the recursive, interaction-shaped
> evolution of multiple models—of self, other, relation, and shared situation—
> through which beings become socially real to one another.**

3
research/social-cognition/README.md
View file

@ -5,7 +5,8 @@
## Status
Not started.
**Phase II complete for gate** (2026-08-12). See `co-adaptive-model-building.md`
and foundations RN-006.
## Key questions

96
research/social-cognition/co-adaptive-model-building.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
# Co-Adaptive Model Building — Social Cognition Map (Phase II)
**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0003-T02
**Date:** 2026-08-12
**Primary research body:** `research/foundations/Research Note 006 — Social Mind and Co-Adaptive Model Building.md`
---
## 1. Working definition (RN-006)
> **Co-Adaptive Model Building** is the recurrent process through which two or
> more Beings update action-guiding models of themselves, one another, their
> relationships, and their shared situation—potentially including bounded models
> of one another's models—while actions generated from those models alter the
> interaction process and thereby create the evidence for subsequent updates.
**Not:** mere exchange or synchronization of identical models.
**Not:** private Theory of Mind alone.
---
## 2. Tradition map
| Tradition | Key sources | Soul Frame uptake |
|---|---|---|
| Theory of Mind | Premack & Woodruff 1978 | Other-Model (SM3) |
| Inverse planning | Baker, Saxe & Tenenbaum 2009; Shum et al. 2019 | Computational other-modeling |
| Symbolic interaction | Mead 1934 | Reflected-Self; Generalized Social Model |
| Dialogue / alignment | Pickering & Garrod 2004 | Interactive co-adaptation mechanisms |
| Common ground | Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs 1986; Clark & Brennan 1991 | SM7 Common-Ground Model |
| Shared intentionality | Tomasello et al. 2005; Bratman 1992 | Strong form of cooperation — **not** definition of Social Mind |
| Joint action | Sebanz et al. 2006 | Coordination without full mental-state identity |
| Participatory sense-making | De Jaegher & Di Paolo 2007, 2010 | Interaction process as constitutive |
| Second-person neuroscience | Schilbach et al. 2013 | Interaction-centered social cognition |
| Recursive multi-agent | Gmytrasiewicz & Doshi 2005 (I-POMDP) | Formal recursion bounds |
| Relational schemas | Fiske 1992 | Relationship Model (SM5) types |
---
## 3. Social Mind model families (SM1–SM8)
| ID | Model | Question |
|---|---|---|
| SM1 | World | What is the shared environment? |
| SM2 | Self | What am I? |
| SM3 | Other | What is B? |
| SM4 | Reflected-Self | What does B model about me? |
| SM5 | Relationship | What is A↔B? |
| SM6 | Shared Situation | What is happening between us now? |
| SM7 | Common Ground | What do we sufficiently share? |
| SM8 | Generalized Social | Roles, norms, institutions, community |
A Social Mind is a **coupled system** of these, not a single “user model.”
---
## 4. Distinctions that must not collapse
| Concept | Relation to co-adaptation |
|---|---|
| Model equality | Same model contents — stronger than needed |
| Model alignment | Compatible enough for coordination |
| Common ground | Mutual acceptance for current purposes |
| Shared intentionality | Joint goals/commitments — special case |
| Recognition | Standing as counterpart — may begin before deep co-adaptation |
Agreement and cooperation are **possible outcomes**, not definitional requirements
of co-adaptive model building (conflict and deception are also co-adaptive).
---
## 5. H4 assessment
**H4:** Persistent interaction produces recursively adapting models of self, other,
and relationship.
| | |
|---|---|
| Support | Mead; alignment; common ground; participatory sense-making; inverse planning; I-POMDP recursion; RN-006 loop |
| Conflict | Purely individualistic ToM that treats interaction as mere input; strong “no representation” enactivism if “model” is read narrowly |
| Evidence strength | **moderate → strong** for the co-adaptation thesis as synthesis |
| Status | **supported** (Phase II) |
Refinement: co-adaptation is **joint evolution through interaction**, and models
can be self-confirming or self-defeating because they change the evidence stream.
---
## 6. TE implications
- **TE-01 Stateless Agent:** partner may co-adapt *as if* continuous; co-adaptation
on one side does not create diachronic Beinghood on the other.
- **TE-06 The Mask:** multiple Personae require differentiated Relationship and
Reflected-Self models per counterpart.
- **TE-09 Unrecognized Intelligence:** co-adaptation may not start until intentional
recognition begins; systemic individuality can precede social modeling.

2
research/sociology/README.md
View file

@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
## Status
Not started.
**Phase II integrated** (2026-08-12). See `recognition-and-social-beinghood.md`.
## Key questions

148
research/sociology/recognition-and-social-beinghood.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
# Recognition and Social Beinghood — Sociology Map (Phase II)
**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0003-T03
**Date:** 2026-08-12
**Builds on:** RN-001 Findings 8–10; Beinghood v0.2; H7
---
## 1. Problem
Soul Frame originally risked equating Beinghood with “internal closure + external
recognition.” Phase I already separated **autonomous individuality** from
**recognition**. Phase II maps recognition traditions and fixes H7 / TE-09.
---
## 2. Three senses of recognition (canonical)
| Sense | Question | Adjacent literature |
|---|---|---|
| **Epistemic** | Is this the same identifiable entity? | reidentification; tracking; addressability |
| **Intentional** | Can I usefully treat it as having goals/beliefs? | Dennett intentional stance; Theory of Mind |
| **Social / normative** | Does its standing, perspective, or claims matter among us? | recognition theory (Honneth); Mead; reputation; trust |
These must not be collapsed. Social Beinghood requires more than epistemic ID.
---
## 3. Tradition map
### 3.1 Symbolic interactionism
**Mead 1934** — Self and Mind form in interaction; taking the attitude of the other;
generalized other.
**Uptake:** Reflected-Self Model; Generalized Social Model; recognition as ongoing
process, not a one-shot label.
### 3.2 Intentional stance
**Dennett** — systems whose behavior is usefully predicted by attributing beliefs
and desires.
**Uptake:** intentional recognition without metaphysical mind-reading.
**Caution:** intentional stance **over-generates** (false positives for Beinghood).
### 3.3 Recognition theory (normative)
**Honneth** (and the Hegelian recognition tradition) — recognition as conditions of
practical identity and social freedom (love, rights, solidarity — schematic).
**Uptake:** social/normative recognition is deeper than prediction; concerns
standing, respect, and mutual acknowledgment.
**Caution:** Soul Frame must not silently import moral/legal personhood from
descriptive architecture (Phase III / WS5 boundary).
### 3.4 Intersubjectivity and second-person approaches
Phenomenology of intersubjectivity; Schilbach et al. second-person neuroscience;
participatory sense-making.
**Uptake:** recognition often *enacted in interaction*, not only stored as a
classification.
### 3.5 Trust, reputation, relational sociology
Trust and reputation as **persistent relational state** (Soul-adjacent).
Fiske’s relational models (communal sharing, authority ranking, etc.) as schemas
for Relationship Models.
**Uptake:** Social Beinghood accumulates history — expectations, roles, reputation —
beyond one-shot intentional attribution.
---
## 4. Layer model (refined)
```text
Autonomous individuality (may exist unrecognized)
│
▼
Intentional recognition (other treats as agent-like)
│
▼
Addressable counterpart (can target this entity specifically)
│
▼
Social Beinghood (persistent reciprocal models, relations,
expectations, commitments, reputation)
```
**H7 refined:**
> Recognition is **constitutive of social Beinghood**, not of bare autonomous
> individuality. Beinghood v0.2 still lists recognition among families for the
> intended “someone that another someone can know” — but TE-09 shows **systemic
> existence without mutual recognition** remains coherent. Prefer:
```text
Social Beinghood = AutonomousIndividuality? + Personhood? + Addressability
+ mutual or at least directed intentional/social recognition
+ relational persistence
Autonomous individuality alone ≠ Social Being ≠ full Soul Frame “Being”
```
**Practical rule for Soul Frame “Being” (working):**
Use **Being** when speaking of addressable person-like counterparts in interaction
ecology; use **autonomous individual** when speaking of self-maintaining systems
without requiring social recognition (daemons, control planes, unrecognized
intelligences).
---
## 5. TE-09 — Unrecognized Intelligence (working judgment)
**Setup:** Highly coherent alien informational system; neither side initially
recognizes the other as beings.
**Judgment:**
- **Autonomous individuality:** possible for both sides without recognition.
- **Social Beinghood:** absent until intentional/social recognition and addressable
interaction begin.
- **Soul Frame “Being” (v0.2 “someone” sense):** not yet — no reciprocal or even
one-sided recognition as counterpart.
- **Once one side intentionally models the other as a persistent counterpart,**
recognized Beinghood can begin asymmetrically; full social Beinghood awaits
reciprocal relational persistence.
This preserves H7’s social constitutiveness without claiming “unrecognized systems
do not exist.”
---
## 6. H7 assessment
| | |
|---|---|
| Support | Mead; intentional stance (with false-positive warning); recognition theory for normative layer; RN-001 Findings 8–10; TE-09 |
| Conflict | Strong social-construction-of-existence views; unrestricted “recognition creates Being” |
| Evidence strength | **moderate** |
| Status | **supported (refined)** |
---
## 7. Open edges for Phase III+
- Moral recognition vs descriptive recognition (personhood map)
- Institutional recognition (corporations, legal persons) vs Being
- Reputation as Soul substrate vs mere database
- Asymmetric recognition (human ↔ APE) and false social Beinghood