Implement SOUL-WP-0010: P1-P12 itemization, instrument scoping, legal precedent survey
- T01: itemize P1-P12 in concepts/personhood.md with per-code defining questions and anchors (Dennett cluster SF-R093, trait/social-cognitive personality psychology SF-R094), matching B1-B8 specificity - T02: research/instrument-scoping-b3-psychological-continuity.md scopes candidate instruments for constitutive integration (B3) and psychological continuity - T03: research/law-governance/legal-personhood-precedent-survey.md, charter scope item 1 only, cross-referenced from the charter - Workplan finished; residual (instrument build gate) recorded as open hub decision 0401cf28; stale "left proposed" prose corrected Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: sonnet Assistant-Process: 234768@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 91cdb0c1-a203-431c-b542-cf192b3930a6
This commit is contained in:
parent
d82d9ddd3f
commit
b2ca47db97
5 changed files with 265 additions and 24 deletions
|
|
@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|||
# Personhood
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** revised (Phase III, 2026-08-12)
|
||||
**Status:** revised (Phase IX, 2026-09-28 — P1–P12 itemized, SOUL-WP-0010-T01)
|
||||
**See also:** H2, RQ2, APE, RN-003, `research/personhood/personhood-dimensions-map.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## Working definition
|
||||
|
|
@ -22,22 +22,31 @@ legal status.
|
|||
|
||||
## Descriptive profile (P1–P12)
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Dimension |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| P1 | Self-model |
|
||||
| P2 | Other-model |
|
||||
| P3 | Relationship model |
|
||||
| P4 | Character |
|
||||
| P5 | Intentional organization |
|
||||
| P6 | Autobiographical integration |
|
||||
| P7 | Perspective (entity-relative; not solved consciousness) |
|
||||
| P8 | Commitments |
|
||||
| P9 | Social reciprocity |
|
||||
| P10 | Communicative competence |
|
||||
| P11 | Responsibility-tracking |
|
||||
| P12 | Value / preference structure |
|
||||
Itemized to the same specificity as B1–B8 (`concepts/being.md`), per
|
||||
SOUL-WP-0010-T01. P1–P9 from RN-003; P10–P12 added in Phase III. Full map:
|
||||
`research/personhood/personhood-dimensions-map.md`. Literature basis:
|
||||
Dennett cluster conditions (SF-R093); trait and social-cognitive
|
||||
personality psychology (SF-R094).
|
||||
|
||||
Profile, not binary checklist.
|
||||
| ID | Dimension | Defining question | Anchors |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| P1 | Self-model | Does it maintain a model of itself as a distinct, continuing entity? | SM2; identity; Dennett self-representation condition |
|
||||
| P2 | Other-model | Does it hold differentiated models of particular others (not just user classes)? | SM3; social cognition / theory-of-mind tradition |
|
||||
| P3 | Relationship model | Does it track histories and states of specific relationships? | SM5; Soul (relation) |
|
||||
| P4 | Character | Does it show persistent dispositions across contexts — stable yet situation-sensitive (trait × situation, CAPS-style), not a fixed script? | Character; SF-R094 Big Five / Mischel |
|
||||
| P5 | Intentional organization | Is its behavior intelligible via extended intentions and plans, beyond single-step stimulus–response? | Mind; agency; Dennett intentional-system condition (SF-R080/R093) |
|
||||
| P6 | Autobiographical integration | Does it integrate past events as *its own* history? | continuity C4/C5; Schechtman characterization question |
|
||||
| P7 | Perspective | Does it operate from an entity-relative informational perspective? (First-person indexicality; explicitly **not** solved phenomenal consciousness.) | RN-003; design boundary |
|
||||
| P8 | Commitments | Do its present acts bind its future manifestations (promises, stances, obligations)? | normative continuity |
|
||||
| P9 | Social reciprocity | Does it recursively co-adapt with others who model it (mutual modeling, not one-way output)? | H4; Social Mind; Dennett reciprocity condition |
|
||||
| P10 | Communicative competence | Can it participate in shared symbol systems and maintain common ground? | language; Dennett verbal-communication condition |
|
||||
| P11 | Responsibility-tracking | Can attributions of credit/blame stick to it diachronically? | identity + commitments (P1, P8) |
|
||||
| P12 | Value / preference structure | Does it exhibit stable cares, preferences, and an evaluative stance? | character; intentional organization; Frankfurt second-order volitions |
|
||||
|
||||
Profile, not binary checklist — score per code; entities can be high on P10
|
||||
and low on P4/P6 (stateless chatbot), or high on B1–B8 and low across
|
||||
P1–P12 (daemon). Per-code enumeration is the prerequisite for per-code
|
||||
metric scoping (`research/metrics-scoping-note.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
## Three axes
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
95
research/instrument-scoping-b3-psychological-continuity.md
Normal file
95
research/instrument-scoping-b3-psychological-continuity.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
|
|||
# Instrument Scoping — Constitutive Integration (B3) and Psychological Continuity
|
||||
|
||||
**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0010-T02, resolved 2026-09-28
|
||||
**Follows:** `research/metrics-scoping-note.md` (SOUL-WP-0009-T04)
|
||||
**Purpose:** scope — not build — candidate operational approaches for the two
|
||||
dimensions the metrics note marked **No existing instrument** while carrying
|
||||
the most argumentative weight across the thought-experiment catalog
|
||||
(TE-02, TE-04, TE-05, TE-08).
|
||||
|
||||
Scoping, in this note's sense: name a candidate operational approach, say
|
||||
what it would measure and what it would miss, and judge whether it is
|
||||
viable enough to justify a build effort — or state explicitly that none is.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. B3 — Constitutive integration
|
||||
|
||||
**Target claim to operationalize:** the system is one *integrated
|
||||
organization*, not loosely coupled components (decisive in TE-05 The
|
||||
Collective: "at which level does self-individuating organization close?";
|
||||
load-bearing in TE-04 for what survives gradual replacement).
|
||||
|
||||
### Candidate approaches
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Approach | What it measures | What it misses |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 1 | **Constraint-closure ratio** (operationalizing Montévil & Mossio 2015): over a dependency graph of the system's processes and the constraints acting on them, the fraction of constraints that are themselves produced/maintained by processes inside the candidate boundary | Degree of organizational closure at a chosen boundary; directly comparable across candidate levels (member vs. collective — exactly TE-05's question) | Graph construction is modeler-dependent; no canonical granularity for "a process" |
|
||||
| 2 | **Integration/segregation measures from network science** (participation coefficient, modularity Q, global efficiency) applied to the component-interaction graph | Whether interaction structure is one integrated module or several weakly coupled ones | Measures topology, not constitution — a message bus scores "integrated" without any self-maintenance |
|
||||
| 3 | **Perturbation-propagation profiling**: ablate or degrade one component; measure how widely and how fast compensatory adjustment propagates | Functional (not just topological) integration; cheap to run on artificial systems | Conflates integration with fragility unless compensation is distinguished from cascade failure |
|
||||
| 4 | IIT-style integrated-information approximations (Φ proxies) | Principled "more than the sum of parts" formalization | Computationally intractable beyond toy systems; imports contested consciousness commitments Soul Frame deliberately avoids (P7 boundary) |
|
||||
|
||||
### Judgment
|
||||
|
||||
**Viable candidate exists.** The recommended composite is **1 + 3**:
|
||||
constraint-closure ratio as the structural instrument, validated against
|
||||
perturbation-propagation profiling as the behavioral check (a genuinely
|
||||
integrated organization should show closure *and* distributed
|
||||
compensation). Approach 2 is a cheap screening proxy only; approach 4 is
|
||||
**rejected** for Soul Frame use — cost and consciousness entanglement.
|
||||
|
||||
For artificial systems the raw material (dependency graphs, service
|
||||
telemetry, chaos-engineering-style perturbation runs) already exists in
|
||||
production tooling; the invention needed is the mapping and the closure
|
||||
criterion, not the data collection. This parallels the metrics note's B4
|
||||
finding ("needs mapping, not invention") more closely than its flat "No"
|
||||
suggested — B3 is *buildable*, not measurable-today.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Psychological continuity
|
||||
|
||||
**Target claim to operationalize:** "the same adaptive/modeling process"
|
||||
persists over time — as distinct from *similar outputs* (the metrics
|
||||
note's explicit objection to output-based proxies). Load-bearing in TE-02
|
||||
(is the restored process the same one?), TE-04 (H6 channel under gradual
|
||||
replacement), TE-08 (degraded continuity when the autobiographical channel
|
||||
fails).
|
||||
|
||||
### Candidate approaches
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Approach | What it measures | What it misses |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 1 | **Representational continuity**: compare internal state-space *structure* across time slices (representational similarity analysis between model snapshots — geometry of the representation space, not I/O behavior) | Whether the modeling process itself evolved continuously vs. was swapped for a behavioral look-alike; directly answers the "same process, not similar outputs" requirement | Requires white-box access; no established threshold for "continuous enough"; substrate-specific (embedding spaces vs. neural recordings don't compare) |
|
||||
| 2 | **Overlapping-chains connectedness** (Parfitian chains operationalized): connectedness of the retrieval graph over the autobiographical store — do current states causally draw on states that drew on earlier states, in overlapping spans? | Graded continuity that degrades the way TE-08 needs (severe amnesia → sparse graph → DEGRADED, not binary death) | Measures the memory channel only (C4/C5-adjacent); a process could stay "the same" while its store is pruned |
|
||||
| 3 | **Longitudinal disposition profiling**: repeated CAPS-style if-then situation×response probes (SF-R094), tracking profile drift over time | Behavioral-level continuity of character/valuation (P4, P12) without white-box access | It is exactly an output-similarity measure — the thing the metrics note warns is *adjacent to*, not identical with, process continuity |
|
||||
|
||||
### Judgment
|
||||
|
||||
**Viable candidate exists, with a caveat.** **Approach 1** is the only
|
||||
candidate that measures the continuity claim itself rather than a
|
||||
correlate; it should be primary. Approach 2 is a complementary channel
|
||||
instrument (autobiographical continuity specifically), and approach 3 is
|
||||
**admissible only as corroborating evidence**, never as the operational
|
||||
definition — otherwise the instrument re-imports the output-similarity
|
||||
error the metrics note flagged.
|
||||
|
||||
Caveat: approach 1 is currently substrate-specific. A cross-substrate
|
||||
psychological-continuity metric remains out of reach; what is scoped here
|
||||
is an instrument *for artificial systems with inspectable internals*.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Overall conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
Both dimensions clear the scoping bar set by SOUL-WP-0010-T02's done
|
||||
condition: at least one candidate operational approach each —
|
||||
**constraint-closure ratio + perturbation profiling** for B3;
|
||||
**representational continuity** (with overlapping-chains as channel
|
||||
instrument) for psychological continuity. Neither is viable *today* as a
|
||||
validated metric; both are viable *build targets* with no missing
|
||||
theoretical prerequisite.
|
||||
|
||||
Whether to actually build/pilot either instrument is a founder-gated
|
||||
prioritization question, recorded as a hub decision (origin: residual,
|
||||
SOUL-WP-0010) rather than opened as a workplan here.
|
||||
105
research/law-governance/legal-personhood-precedent-survey.md
Normal file
105
research/law-governance/legal-personhood-precedent-survey.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
|
|||
# Legal Personhood Precedent Survey (Companion Line — Slice 1)
|
||||
|
||||
**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0010-T03, resolved 2026-09-28
|
||||
**Charter:** `moral-legal-personhood-charter.md` — this note executes charter
|
||||
scope item 1 **only**. Moral status (item 2) and the non-derivation
|
||||
statement (item 3) are explicitly **not** attempted here.
|
||||
**Extends:** `sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md` (§1 mapping row "Being →
|
||||
legal person: fit poor/direct").
|
||||
**Non-goal:** no derivation of moral or legal status from Soul Frame
|
||||
descriptive concepts; no jurisdiction-specific legal advice. Jurisdictional
|
||||
variance is tracked, not averaged (charter item 4).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Corporate personhood — the fiat baseline
|
||||
|
||||
| Precedent | Jurisdiction | Holding / significance |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| *Salomon v A Salomon & Co* (1897) | UK | Separate legal personality of the company even with one dominant shareholder; personality as legal construction, not description |
|
||||
| *Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific* (1886) | US | Headnote origin of corporate constitutional personhood under the 14th Amendment |
|
||||
| *Citizens United v FEC* (2010) | US | Corporate political-speech rights; personality bundle expands by doctrine, not by any change in the entity |
|
||||
| *Burwell v Hobby Lobby* (2014) | US | Closely-held corporations exercise religious rights — bundle extends to interests classically "personal" |
|
||||
|
||||
**Pattern:** legal personality is a *functional grant* serving legal-system
|
||||
purposes (asset partitioning, standing, liability channeling). The bearer
|
||||
has essentially **no descriptive personhood profile** (P1–P12 ≈ 0 at the
|
||||
corporate level; cf. RN-003 §8 corporate false-positive risk, TE-05) —
|
||||
maximal proof that legal personality and descriptive personhood are
|
||||
independent axes.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Animal law — capacities without personality
|
||||
|
||||
| Precedent | Jurisdiction | Holding / significance |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| NhRP *Tommy* / *Kiko* line (2014–2018, NY) | US | Habeas for chimpanzees denied; courts leaned on rights–duties reciprocity ("social contract" reasoning) |
|
||||
| *NhRP v Breheny* ("Happy" the elephant, 2022, NY Court of Appeals) | US | Habeas denied 5–2; strong dissents (Wilson, Rivera) arguing personality is a legal conclusion, not a biological fact |
|
||||
| *Sandra* orangutan (2015, Buenos Aires) | Argentina | Court language of "non-human subject of rights"; effect largely welfare-based |
|
||||
| *Cecilia* chimpanzee (2016, Mendoza) | Argentina | Habeas **granted**; explicitly declared a non-human legal person for the writ's purpose |
|
||||
|
||||
**Pattern:** the mirror image of §1 — entities with a **non-trivial
|
||||
descriptive profile** (self/other-models, social reciprocity) are mostly
|
||||
*denied* legal personality, with courts citing duty-bearing capacity, not
|
||||
descriptive capacities. Where granted (Cecilia), the grant is narrow and
|
||||
purpose-bound. Confirms: descriptive profile neither necessary (§1) nor
|
||||
sufficient (§2) for legal personality.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Environmental / other non-human grants — personality as governance instrument
|
||||
|
||||
| Precedent | Jurisdiction | Holding / significance |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Te Awa Tupua Act (2017) | New Zealand | Whanganui River as legal person with statutory human guardians (Te Pou Tupua) |
|
||||
| Ganges/Yamuna, Uttarakhand HC (2017) | India | Rivers declared legal persons; **stayed** by the Supreme Court — grants can be revoked/suspended |
|
||||
| Rights of Nature, Constitution art. 71 (2008) | Ecuador | Constitutional-level standing for nature |
|
||||
|
||||
**Pattern:** legal personality used as a **custodianship/standing
|
||||
mechanism** — personality plus mandatory human guardians. Structurally the
|
||||
closest existing template to the gap sketch's missing "Gh. custodianship
|
||||
instrument" (§1, §3.4 there): a legal person that cannot represent itself,
|
||||
represented by appointed authorities with defined scope.
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. AI legal personality — proposals, not precedent
|
||||
|
||||
| Item | Status |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Solum, "Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences" (1992, NC L Rev) | Foundational scholarly framing: personality as bundle; capacity objections answerable case-by-case |
|
||||
| EU Parliament resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2017/2103(INL)) | Proposed exploring "electronic personhood" for sophisticated autonomous robots |
|
||||
| Open letter from AI/robotics/law experts (2018) | Opposed electronic personhood as liability-shielding; influential in the retreat |
|
||||
| EP resolution 2020/2014(INL) on AI civil liability | Retreat: liability routed to existing persons (operator/producer); no electronic person |
|
||||
| Bryson, Diamantis & Grant, "Of, for, and by the people" (2017, AI & Law) | "Synthetic persons" legally possible but a policy mistake: personality without effective sanctionability creates a liability lacuna |
|
||||
|
||||
**Pattern:** the live AI debate is **not** about descriptive capacities but
|
||||
about *liability engineering* — who absorbs harm costs. The strongest
|
||||
objection (Bryson et al.) is that personality without punishability
|
||||
decouples rights from accountability: in Soul Frame terms, the law cares
|
||||
about something like P8/P11 (commitments, responsibility-tracking)
|
||||
*enforceability*, not about the descriptive profile as such.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Cross-cutting findings (for the companion line, not the descriptive core)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Fiat and functional.** Every grant surveyed serves a legal-system
|
||||
purpose; none tracks a descriptive threshold. The gap sketch's "fit:
|
||||
poor/direct" for Being → legal person is confirmed across all four
|
||||
clusters.
|
||||
2. **Personality is a divisible bundle.** Partial, purpose-bound grants
|
||||
(Cecilia's habeas-only personhood, river guardianship) are normal —
|
||||
"legal person" names a family of bundles, not one status.
|
||||
3. **Double decoupling.** No-profile entities hold rich bundles (§1);
|
||||
rich-profile entities are denied them (§2). Any future Soul Frame
|
||||
moral/legal mapping must treat legal personality as an independent
|
||||
variable, never a derivable one.
|
||||
4. **Guardianship is the load-bearing template.** For Sp./Gh. governance
|
||||
questions, §3's guardian-plus-person construction is the precedent
|
||||
family to develop further, not §1's self-directed corporate model.
|
||||
5. **Jurisdictional variance is severe** — common-law habeas strategies,
|
||||
civil-law subject-of-rights language, statutory grants, and
|
||||
constitutional provisions behave differently; per charter item 4 this
|
||||
table tracks, and must not average, them.
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Residual (explicitly not opened here)
|
||||
|
||||
Charter items 2 (moral status survey) and 3 (non-derivation statement)
|
||||
remain future slices of the companion line, gated per the charter's own
|
||||
next-step rule.
|
||||
|
|
@ -22,7 +22,9 @@ core to get there — by defining a companion line with its own scope.
|
|||
|
||||
## Scope (what the companion line would cover)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Legal personhood precedent survey** — corporate personhood, animal
|
||||
1. **Legal personhood precedent survey** — ✅ first slice executed as
|
||||
`legal-personhood-precedent-survey.md` (SOUL-WP-0010-T03, 2026-09-28) —
|
||||
corporate personhood, animal
|
||||
welfare/rights law, AI legal-personality proposals (e.g. EU robot-
|
||||
personhood debate), personality/publicity rights (`SF-R110`), digital
|
||||
estates (`SF-R111`) — building outward from the existing gap sketch in
|
||||
|
|
@ -77,3 +79,7 @@ scoped narrowly enough (e.g. "legal personhood precedent survey only" as a
|
|||
first slice) to avoid re-opening the whole moral/legal question at once.
|
||||
Not opened now — SOUL-WP-0009-T05's done condition is this charter existing,
|
||||
not the companion line's work starting.
|
||||
|
||||
**Update 2026-09-28:** the first slice was picked up exactly as scoped —
|
||||
SOUL-WP-0010-T03 produced `legal-personhood-precedent-survey.md` (item 1
|
||||
only). Items 2–4 remain unstarted future slices.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ type: workplan
|
|||
title: "Phase IX — P-axis enumeration, metrics instruments, and moral/legal companion line (slice 1)"
|
||||
domain: agents
|
||||
repo: soul-frame
|
||||
status: active
|
||||
status: finished
|
||||
flavor: residual
|
||||
origin: residual
|
||||
origin_ref: SOUL-WP-0009
|
||||
|
|
@ -33,9 +33,8 @@ and should not sit only as prose in their source notes:
|
|||
first narrow slice ("legal personhood precedent survey only") rather than
|
||||
opening the whole moral/legal question at once.
|
||||
|
||||
This workplan bundles both as a first slice. **Left `proposed`** — not
|
||||
reviewed against current repo state or started; needs Bernd's go-ahead
|
||||
before promotion to `ready`/`active`, same as SOUL-WP-0009 was.
|
||||
This workplan bundles both as a first slice. Activated 2026-09-28 with
|
||||
Bernd's go-ahead; all three tasks resolved the same day.
|
||||
|
||||
## Depends on
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -47,7 +46,7 @@ before promotion to `ready`/`active`, same as SOUL-WP-0009 was.
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0010-T01
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "598c52c1-5902-541f-bff0-78a8700ce4ed"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -67,7 +66,7 @@ specificity.
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0010-T02
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: low
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "1ae4434f-8603-5c71-aa59-add71bff24aa"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -86,7 +85,7 @@ approach per dimension, or explicitly states none is currently viable.
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0010-T03
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: low
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "f29ae5a5-0ede-57c2-9963-50580f5cf6db"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -99,3 +98,30 @@ status or the non-derivation statement (charter items 2–3) in this slice.
|
|||
|
||||
**Done when:** a precedent survey note exists, explicitly scoped to legal
|
||||
personhood only, cross-referenced from the charter.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Outcome (2026-09-28)
|
||||
|
||||
- **T01** — `concepts/personhood.md` now carries an itemized P1–P12 table
|
||||
(defining question + anchors per code), sourced from the Phase III
|
||||
dimensions map, SF-R093 (Dennett cluster) and SF-R094 (trait /
|
||||
social-cognitive personality psychology). Unblocks per-code metric
|
||||
scoping.
|
||||
- **T02** — `research/instrument-scoping-b3-psychological-continuity.md`:
|
||||
viable build targets named for both dimensions (B3: constraint-closure
|
||||
ratio + perturbation profiling; psychological continuity:
|
||||
representational continuity, white-box systems only). Neither viable as
|
||||
a validated metric today.
|
||||
- **T03** — `research/law-governance/legal-personhood-precedent-survey.md`:
|
||||
four precedent clusters (corporate, animal, environmental, AI
|
||||
proposals), legal-personhood-only per charter item 1; cross-referenced
|
||||
from the charter. Key finding: double decoupling of legal personality
|
||||
from descriptive profile; guardianship grants (§3) are the template
|
||||
relevant to Gh. custodianship.
|
||||
|
||||
**Residual:** whether to build/pilot the two scoped instruments is
|
||||
founder-gated — recorded as open hub decision
|
||||
`0401cf28-48bb-4486-87cc-b1dfd6903d0d` (origin: residual, origin_ref:
|
||||
SOUL-WP-0010-T02). Charter items 2–4 stay future companion-line slices
|
||||
gated by the charter itself, not residuals of this workplan.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue