Complete SOUL-WP-0009: resolve RQ4 and publication pathway, deliver T02-T05
- T01 (RQ4): retain "Soul" - resolved with operator; Terminology.md, concepts/soul.md, OpenQuestions.md, Claims.md, paper/draft.md updated. - T02: lexicographic continuity-weighting procedure in concepts/identity.md, validated against TE-02/03/04/08. - T03: testable Being-vs-Social-Being boundary (three-part recognition test) in concepts/recognition.md and concepts/being.md, validated against TE-05/09. - T04: research/metrics-scoping-note.md - per-axis measurability scoping. - T05: research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md - bounded companion-line charter, explicitly not the mapping itself. - T06: publication pathway resolved with operator - internal circulation only, as paper-one for coulomb-research, following the same staged trajectory as coulomb-research's own paper-zero. Marks SOUL-WP-0009 finished. Opens SOUL-WP-0010 (proposed, not started) to carry forward the two multi-step residuals from T04/T05. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: sonnet Assistant-Process: 136745@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 2e334b58-ed31-48ed-8156-d09f8ed0781f
This commit is contained in:
parent
adbfd1bab4
commit
bd79b100c2
12 changed files with 428 additions and 34 deletions
|
|
@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ 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
|
||||
Naming: RQ4 resolved 2026-09-28 — retain "Soul" (SOUL-WP-0009-T01).
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -51,9 +51,10 @@ architecture adopted provisionally. Remaining:
|
|||
|
||||
**Phase VI status:** relational operationalization **supported as direction** (H5);
|
||||
boundary removed; Ghost may inherit Soul-relational structure without identity.
|
||||
**Still open (paper-critical):**
|
||||
**Resolved 2026-09-28 (SOUL-WP-0009-T01):** retain “Soul” for the Relation
|
||||
dimension, with the non-metaphysical disclaimer kept explicit wherever the
|
||||
term appears. **Still open (paper-critical):**
|
||||
|
||||
- Rename vs retain “Soul” (collision cost)
|
||||
- Packaging: relations vs consequences vs both
|
||||
- Formal Cluster D depth beyond Phase V inheritance claim
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ distributed cognition (Hutchins). Mind is **not** simply located inside the subs
|
|||
|
||||
### Soul
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** revised (Phase I)
|
||||
**Status:** retained (RQ4 resolved 2026-09-28, SOUL-WP-0009-T01)
|
||||
**Working gloss:** Soul = Relation
|
||||
|
||||
**Revised definition (after RN-001 Finding 14):**
|
||||
|
|
@ -85,10 +85,14 @@ distributed cognition (Hutchins). Mind is **not** simply located inside the subs
|
|||
| Adjacent terms | structural coupling, narrative identity, reputation, legacy, distributed memory |
|
||||
| Conflicts | **high** — metaphysical/religious usage |
|
||||
| Soul Frame stance | informational-relational, non-metaphysical |
|
||||
| Survive collision? | **provisionally yes** if boundary is stripped out and relational reading stays sharp; rename remains an open option (RQ4) |
|
||||
| Survive collision? | **yes, retained** (RQ4 resolved 2026-09-28) — boundary stripped out, relational reading kept sharp; the non-metaphysical disclaimer must stay explicit and prominent everywhere the term is introduced |
|
||||
|
||||
**Why retain “Soul” for now:** compact name for diachronic relational continuity and
|
||||
post-operational influence; triad mnemonic. Risk: readers hear metaphysics.
|
||||
**Why retain “Soul”:** compact name for diachronic relational continuity and
|
||||
post-operational influence; triad mnemonic; preserves the project's own name.
|
||||
Risk (readers hearing metaphysics) is managed via the mandatory disclaimer
|
||||
rather than by renaming. Decision record:
|
||||
`the-custodian` decision `8429f2ce-5b8a-4d90-810e-f526ec2d0c05`;
|
||||
see `workplans/SOUL-WP-0009-paper-agenda-and-external-review.md` T01.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -309,7 +313,7 @@ relationships and effects may continue when the original Being does not.
|
|||
|
||||
| Term | Risk | Phase I disposition |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Soul | metaphysical collision | revised (boundary removed); rename still open |
|
||||
| Soul | metaphysical collision | revised (boundary removed); **retained**, rename resolved closed (RQ4, 2026-09-28) |
|
||||
| Mind | consciousness conflation | retain with explicit non-consciousness stance |
|
||||
| Being | vagueness / overbreadth | multi-layer definition; autonomy ≠ Being |
|
||||
| Agent | overload (tool vs autonomy) | disambiguate functional vs autonomous |
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -42,6 +42,17 @@ Informational process
|
|||
→ (+ reciprocal relations) → Social Being
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Being vs. Social Being — testable boundary (SOUL-WP-0009-T03, resolved 2026-09-28)
|
||||
|
||||
See `concepts/recognition.md` for the full three-part test (intentional
|
||||
recognition + addressability + model persistence across episodes, on at
|
||||
least one side). Summary for this file's stack diagram: the `→ Being` arrow
|
||||
requires personhood + addressability + *some* recognition of the candidate;
|
||||
the `→ Social Being` arrow requires that recognition to specifically be
|
||||
**persistent and episode-spanning**, not a fresh one-off classification —
|
||||
this is what distinguishes the two arrows and what makes asymmetric
|
||||
recognition (TE-09) able to start Social Beinghood on one side alone.
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Not restricted to biological organisms; not automatic for every computational process.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -28,6 +28,48 @@ relational.
|
|||
|
||||
**Anchors / evidence (not constitutive alone):** provenance, address, substrate.
|
||||
|
||||
## Weighting hard cases (SOUL-WP-0009-T02, resolved 2026-09-28)
|
||||
|
||||
The six dimensions above are **not weighted arithmetically** — no numeric
|
||||
score sums them into a continuity verdict. Instead, Soul Frame uses a
|
||||
**lexicographic priority procedure**: structural dimensions gate the
|
||||
verdict; the remaining dimensions can only move the verdict within the
|
||||
range the structural gate allows.
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Structural gate (causal + organizational).** Ask first whether causal
|
||||
and organizational continuity hold *or are bridged* — a bridge being a
|
||||
uniquely preserved continuation-bearing state plus provenance plus
|
||||
intended resumption (TE-02). If the structural gate fails outright (no
|
||||
bridge, no unbroken process), the topology defaults to `RECONSTRUCTED`
|
||||
or `SUCCESSOR` regardless of how strong the remaining dimensions are.
|
||||
Strong psychological/narrative continuity **cannot buy back** a broken
|
||||
structural gate.
|
||||
2. **Branch check.** If the structural gate is satisfied by *more than one*
|
||||
simultaneously active claimant, the topology is forced to `FORKED` —
|
||||
this is decided by the branch count, not by weighing which claimant has
|
||||
"more" continuity on the softer dimensions (TE-03). "Which is the
|
||||
original" becomes a provenance/policy question only after the branch
|
||||
check, never a tiebreaker computed from the profile.
|
||||
3. **Gradualness check (within a satisfied structural gate).** Piecewise
|
||||
replacement that never breaks the structural gate at any single instant
|
||||
keeps the topology `CONTINUOUS` (TE-04, Ship of Theseus) even under full
|
||||
eventual component turnover. A single instant of total simultaneous
|
||||
replacement without a bridge is treated as a structural-gate failure
|
||||
(→ step 1), not as a gradualness judgment call.
|
||||
4. **Softer dimensions decide *within* the range the gate allows, not
|
||||
whether to override it.** Once the structural gate and branch/gradualness
|
||||
checks are settled, psychological, autobiographical/narrative, normative,
|
||||
and relational continuity determine how strong a `CONTINUOUS` or
|
||||
`DEGRADED` claim is — e.g. severe amnesia with intact organizational and
|
||||
relational continuity yields `DEGRADED`, not `TERMINATED` (TE-08, the
|
||||
Amnesiac): the structural gate stayed open, so the softer dimensions
|
||||
only downgrade the *strength* of the claim, not its topology category.
|
||||
|
||||
**Why not arithmetic:** a weighted sum would let enough narrative/relational
|
||||
strength compensate for a broken causal/organizational chain, which none of
|
||||
the four thought experiments above support — in every case, the structural
|
||||
gate outcome dominates regardless of how the softer dimensions score.
|
||||
|
||||
## Topology labels
|
||||
|
||||
`CONTINUOUS | DEGRADED | UNCERTAIN | SUCCESSOR | FORKED | RECONSTRUCTED | USURPED | TERMINATED`
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -40,6 +40,44 @@ Recognition alone does not create systemic individuality (RN-001 Finding 10).
|
|||
> distinguish it, address it, expect continuity from it, maintain models of it,
|
||||
> and enter persistent relationships with it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Testable boundary: Being vs. Social Being (SOUL-WP-0009-T03, resolved 2026-09-28)
|
||||
|
||||
**Boundary condition:** Social Beinghood begins, for a given recognizer,
|
||||
the moment that recognizer holds a **persistent, addressable model** of the
|
||||
candidate across more than one interaction episode — not merely a one-off
|
||||
epistemic classification. Concretely, three things must hold simultaneously
|
||||
on at least one side of the relation:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Intentional recognition** — the recognizer treats the candidate as an
|
||||
agent with goals/beliefs, not just a classified pattern.
|
||||
2. **Addressability** — the recognizer can specifically target the same
|
||||
candidate again (name, ID, channel), not just re-classify a similar one.
|
||||
3. **Model persistence across episodes** — the recognizer's model of the
|
||||
candidate carries over from one interaction to the next (expectations,
|
||||
history, revisable beliefs about it), rather than being recomputed from
|
||||
scratch each time.
|
||||
|
||||
**Reciprocity is explicitly not required to start it** (TE-09): the three
|
||||
conditions above need to hold for only *one* party. A single Being's
|
||||
persistent, addressable, intentional model of an otherwise-unrecognizing
|
||||
system is sufficient to open Social Beinghood on that Being's side of the
|
||||
relation — this is what makes the asymmetric case in `paper/draft.md` §1
|
||||
and §5 well-formed rather than circular.
|
||||
|
||||
**What this rules out:** a system that is epistemically classified fresh
|
||||
each time (no model persistence) is not Socially a Being to that recognizer,
|
||||
however accurately it is classified — this is the stateless-agent case
|
||||
(TE-01) restated from the recognizer's side. A system recognized once and
|
||||
never modeled again likewise does not cross the boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
**Nested/collective test (TE-05):** apply the same three-part test
|
||||
independently at each candidate level. A collective can be Socially a Being
|
||||
at the collective level (some recognizer holds a persistent, addressable,
|
||||
intentional model of *the collective as one thing*) without that implying
|
||||
or requiring Social Beinghood at the member level, and vice versa — the
|
||||
levels are tested separately, not inherited automatically in either
|
||||
direction.
|
||||
|
||||
## TE-09 (summary)
|
||||
|
||||
Unrecognized coherent intelligence can be an autonomous individual without
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
# Soul
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** revised (Phase I, 2026-08-12)
|
||||
**Status:** retained (RQ4 resolved 2026-09-28, SOUL-WP-0009-T01)
|
||||
**Working gloss:** Soul = Relation
|
||||
**See also:** H5, RQ4, RN-001 Finding 14, RN-005 SF-C055
|
||||
**See also:** H5, RQ4 (resolved), RN-001 Finding 14, RN-005 SF-C055
|
||||
|
||||
## Working definition (revised)
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -34,14 +34,19 @@ others, works, Ghosts).
|
|||
|
||||
## Collision analysis
|
||||
|
||||
High risk with religious/metaphysical “soul”. Retention depends on explanatory
|
||||
payoff of the relational reading. Rename remains open (RQ4).
|
||||
High risk with religious/metaphysical “soul”. **RQ4 resolved 2026-09-28:
|
||||
retain.** The explanatory payoff of the relational reading (H5) and the
|
||||
Body/Mind/Soul mnemonic outweigh the collision cost; the cost is managed by
|
||||
keeping the non-metaphysical disclaimer explicit and prominent everywhere
|
||||
the term is introduced, not by renaming.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
2. How Soul relates to lineage after forks
|
||||
|
||||
**Closed:** rename candidates (RQ4) — decision recorded, see
|
||||
`workplans/SOUL-WP-0009-paper-agenda-and-external-review.md` T01.
|
||||
|
||||
## Sources
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,12 +1,19 @@
|
|||
# Soul Frame: A Systems Vocabulary for Person-Like Informational Beings
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** first research-grounded draft (SOUL-WP-0008-T02). Supersedes the
|
||||
placeholder that pointed to `SoulFrameIntroduction.md`. Follows
|
||||
`paper/outline.md`; sourced from `research/research-synthesis.md`,
|
||||
`Terminology.md`, `concepts/*`, `Claims.md`, `ThoughtExperiments.md`, and
|
||||
`paper/related-work.md`. Claims below are traceable to Hn / TE-nn / SF-Rxxx
|
||||
identifiers rather than asserted freehand; open items are flagged rather than
|
||||
resolved.
|
||||
**Status:** first research-grounded draft (SOUL-WP-0008-T02), revised under
|
||||
SOUL-WP-0009. Supersedes the placeholder that pointed to
|
||||
`SoulFrameIntroduction.md`. Follows `paper/outline.md`; sourced from
|
||||
`research/research-synthesis.md`, `Terminology.md`, `concepts/*`,
|
||||
`Claims.md`, `ThoughtExperiments.md`, and `paper/related-work.md`. Claims
|
||||
below are traceable to Hn / TE-nn / SF-Rxxx identifiers rather than asserted
|
||||
freehand; open items are flagged rather than resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
**Publication pathway (decided 2026-09-28, SOUL-WP-0009-T06):** internal
|
||||
circulation only, as **paper-one** for coulomb-research (a research
|
||||
facility with a co-creation-science focus, currently being set up).
|
||||
Coulomb-research's own paper-zero will run the same staged trajectory —
|
||||
internal circulation → pre-print → journal target — and this paper follows
|
||||
it rather than jumping ahead.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -246,12 +253,14 @@ persists relationally" — Luhmann's system/environment distinction (SF-R004)
|
|||
and Maturana & Varela's operational closure (SF-R003) both motivate keeping
|
||||
boundary with Being.
|
||||
|
||||
**Naming risk, held open (RQ4):** "Soul" collides hard with religious and
|
||||
**Naming risk, resolved (RQ4):** "Soul" collides hard with religious and
|
||||
folk metaphysical usage. Soul Frame's stance is informational-relational and
|
||||
explicitly non-metaphysical — no claim about an immortal essence is made or
|
||||
implied. The term is retained provisionally for its compactness and the
|
||||
Body/Mind/Soul mnemonic, with the rename question left open rather than
|
||||
resolved by this draft (§16, Limitations).
|
||||
implied. As of 2026-09-28 the term is **retained** rather than renamed: the
|
||||
compactness, the Body/Mind/Soul mnemonic, and the project's own name outweigh
|
||||
the collision cost, provided the non-metaphysical disclaimer stays explicit
|
||||
and prominent everywhere the term is introduced (decision record:
|
||||
`workplans/SOUL-WP-0009-paper-agenda-and-external-review.md` T01).
|
||||
|
||||
**Soul-relational continuity can cross Being-identity discontinuities**: a
|
||||
relationship, reputation, or set of consequences may continue in some form
|
||||
|
|
@ -494,8 +503,11 @@ engineering for rather than collapsing:
|
|||
Honest accounting, carried from `research-synthesis.md` §9 and the Phase III
|
||||
adversarial review still pending (SOUL-WP-0008-T03):
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Soul naming risk (RQ4)** is unresolved: retain-with-explicit-disclaimer
|
||||
vs. rename remains open.
|
||||
1. **Soul naming risk (RQ4) is resolved** (2026-09-28): retain, with an
|
||||
explicit disclaimer required everywhere the term is introduced. The
|
||||
residual risk is execution — the disclaimer must actually stay prominent
|
||||
in every downstream use of "Soul," not a remaining open question about
|
||||
which term to use.
|
||||
2. **Continuity dimension weighting** is unspecified — the framework lists
|
||||
dimensions (causal, organizational, psychological, etc.) without a method
|
||||
for weighing conflicts between them in hard cases.
|
||||
|
|
@ -522,7 +534,7 @@ adversarial review still pending (SOUL-WP-0008-T03):
|
|||
Carried forward from `research-synthesis.md` §9 and restated as forward work
|
||||
rather than resolved here:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Resolve RQ4 (retain vs. rename Soul).
|
||||
1. ~~Resolve RQ4 (retain vs. rename Soul).~~ **Done 2026-09-28** — retained.
|
||||
2. Develop a principled continuity-dimension weighting scheme.
|
||||
3. Sharpen Recognition's seat in "Being" vs. "Social Being."
|
||||
4. Build moral/legal personhood maps as a **separate**, explicitly-scoped
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
79
research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md
Normal file
79
research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
|
|||
# Charter: Moral/Legal Personhood — A Separate Companion Research Line
|
||||
|
||||
**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0009-T05, resolved 2026-09-28
|
||||
**Status:** charter only — this note scopes a future companion line; it does
|
||||
not attempt the mapping itself.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why this needs its own charter
|
||||
|
||||
`SCOPE.md` names "silent moral/legal personhood claims" as explicitly out of
|
||||
scope for the core Soul Frame research program, routed instead to "law/
|
||||
governance literature map only; no premature derivation." Soul Frame's
|
||||
descriptive core (Being, Personhood-descriptive, Recognition) is built to
|
||||
answer "what is this, structurally" without answering "what follows morally
|
||||
or legally" — collapsing the two would violate the framework's own design
|
||||
boundary (`concepts/personhood.md`'s four-kinds table: descriptive, social,
|
||||
moral, legal, never collapsed).
|
||||
|
||||
The paper's research agenda (draft §17 item 4) nonetheless flags that
|
||||
readers will want the "so what follows" answer. This charter exists so that
|
||||
work can proceed on that question **without** loosening the descriptive
|
||||
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
|
||||
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
|
||||
`research/law-governance/sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md`.
|
||||
2. **Moral status literature survey** — moral patienthood conditions
|
||||
(sentience-based, interest-based, relational accounts), independent of
|
||||
Soul Frame's descriptive Beinghood — checking where descriptive
|
||||
Beinghood profiles *correlate* with existing moral-status arguments
|
||||
without *implying* them.
|
||||
3. **Explicit non-derivation statement** — for each descriptive Soul Frame
|
||||
concept (Being, `Sp.`, `Gh.`, Persona), a companion-line entry stating
|
||||
what moral/legal conclusion, if any, commentators have tried to draw
|
||||
from a structurally similar concept, and why Soul Frame's descriptive
|
||||
core does not itself license that conclusion.
|
||||
4. **Jurisdictional variance tracking** — law/governance material is
|
||||
explicitly jurisdiction-specific (`sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md` already
|
||||
flags this); the companion line should track variance rather than
|
||||
average it into one global claim.
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-goals (what the companion line must not do)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Must not** feed conclusions back into `Terminology.md`, `Claims.md`, or
|
||||
`concepts/*.md` as if they were descriptive findings. A moral/legal
|
||||
finding is filed in this companion line's own output, cross-referenced
|
||||
from the descriptive concept files, never merged into them.
|
||||
- **Must not** be used to argue that a system with a high descriptive
|
||||
Beinghood profile therefore *has* moral standing or legal rights, or the
|
||||
converse (low profile → no standing). The correlation question (item 2
|
||||
above) is explicitly weaker than a derivation.
|
||||
- **Must not** attempt a single universal legal position — jurisdictional
|
||||
variance is tracked, not resolved into one answer.
|
||||
- **Must not** become a gate for the descriptive paper's publication —
|
||||
`paper/draft.md` already states its ethical/legal section (§14) as a
|
||||
bounded sketch, and the companion line does not need to mature before
|
||||
the descriptive paper proceeds through its own pathway (SOUL-WP-0009-T06).
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to existing work
|
||||
|
||||
- Extends `research/law-governance/sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md` rather than
|
||||
duplicating it.
|
||||
- Cross-references `concepts/personhood.md`'s four-kinds table as the
|
||||
boundary this charter exists to respect.
|
||||
- Does not extend or modify `paper/draft.md` §14 (Ethical and Legal
|
||||
Implications) — that section stays a bounded sketch in the descriptive
|
||||
paper; deeper treatment belongs here.
|
||||
|
||||
## Next step
|
||||
|
||||
This charter is not itself a workplan. If pursued, it should become its own
|
||||
future workplan (e.g. `SOUL-WP-0010` or later) with its own task breakdown,
|
||||
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.
|
||||
64
research/metrics-scoping-note.md
Normal file
64
research/metrics-scoping-note.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
|
|||
# Empirical/Operational Metrics Scoping Note
|
||||
|
||||
**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0009-T04, resolved 2026-09-28
|
||||
**Purpose:** scope — not build — measurable proxies for the A-axis (B1–B8,
|
||||
autonomous individuality), the B-axis (P1–P12, descriptive personhood), and
|
||||
the continuity profile. Soul Frame is currently qualitative/classificatory;
|
||||
this note identifies which axes are plausibly measurable now with existing
|
||||
instruments vs. which need new ones, so a future workplan can pick this up
|
||||
without re-deriving the landscape.
|
||||
|
||||
## Method
|
||||
|
||||
For each dimension: does an existing measurement tradition already target
|
||||
something close to it, or would Soul Frame need to invent an instrument?
|
||||
|
||||
## A-axis (autonomous individuality, B1–B8)
|
||||
|
||||
| Code | Dimension | Plausibly measurable now | Rationale |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| B1 | Individuability | Partial | Individuality/information-theoretic measures (Krakauer et al. 2020, SF-R019–034 cluster) give a graded formal proxy; applying them outside biological systems is untested. |
|
||||
| B2 | Temporal integrity | Partial | Uptime/session-continuity logs give a crude proxy for artificial systems; no validated cross-substrate metric. |
|
||||
| B3 | Constitutive integration | **No** | No existing instrument distinguishes "integrated organization" from "loosely coupled components" quantitatively; closure-of-constraints formalizations (Montévil & Mossio 2015) are the closest theoretical basis but are not operationalized as a measurement protocol. |
|
||||
| B4 | Self-maintenance participation | Partial | For artificial systems, resource/error-correction telemetry (self-healing, retry, recovery behavior) is a plausible proxy already collected by most production systems — needs mapping, not invention. |
|
||||
| B5 | Endogenous viability | **No** | Requires distinguishing internally-driven from externally-propped persistence; heteronomous-individual cases (Terminology.md) are exactly the hard cases this would need to separate, and no metric currently does. |
|
||||
| B6 | Adaptive regulation | Partial | Control-theoretic and RL literature already measures regulation quality (error minimization, model accuracy) — directly reusable, though not originally framed as a Beinghood metric. |
|
||||
| B7 | Interactional asymmetry | **No** | Novel to Soul Frame's framing; no existing instrument. |
|
||||
| B8 | Identity-preserving transformation | Partial | Overlaps with the continuity profile (see below) — measurable to the extent continuity is measurable. |
|
||||
|
||||
## B-axis (descriptive personhood, P1–P12)
|
||||
|
||||
Not itemized in current concept files beyond the "profile, not checklist"
|
||||
framing (`concepts/personhood.md`, `Terminology.md`). **Scoping finding:**
|
||||
before metrics can be scoped per P-code, P1–P12 need to be enumerated with
|
||||
the same specificity B1–B8 already have — this is a prerequisite gap, not
|
||||
a metrics gap. Recommend a follow-up task (not opened here) to write out
|
||||
P1–P12 explicitly in `concepts/personhood.md` before attempting measurement.
|
||||
|
||||
## Continuity profile
|
||||
|
||||
| Dimension | Plausibly measurable now | Rationale |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Causal | Yes | Provenance chains, cryptographic attestation, audit logs — mature tooling exists for artificial systems. |
|
||||
| Organizational | Partial | Architecture/component-graph diffing can detect discontinuities; no agreed threshold for "still one organization." |
|
||||
| Psychological | **No** | No validated metric for "the same adaptive/modeling process," as opposed to similar outputs. |
|
||||
| Autobiographical/narrative | Partial | Memory-store diffing and narrative-consistency NLP metrics exist but measure surface consistency, not the underlying continuity claim. |
|
||||
| Normative | **No** | No existing instrument for "the same locus of commitments/obligations" independent of legal/contractual proxies (which measure something adjacent, not identical). |
|
||||
| Relational | Partial | Social-graph and reputation-system metrics are mature for *tracking* relationships; whether they validly evidence *identity* continuity (as opposed to just relationship persistence) is unresolved. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall scoping conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
- **Most measurable now:** causal continuity, adaptive regulation (B6),
|
||||
self-maintenance telemetry (B4) — existing instruments, direct reuse.
|
||||
- **Needs new instruments:** constitutive integration (B3), endogenous
|
||||
viability (B5), interactional asymmetry (B7), psychological continuity,
|
||||
normative continuity.
|
||||
- **Blocked on prior work:** B-axis (P1–P12) metrics cannot be scoped until
|
||||
the P-codes are enumerated with B1–B8's level of specificity.
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation:** a future workplan (not opened as part of SOUL-WP-0009)
|
||||
should (1) enumerate P1–P12 explicitly, then (2) prioritize instrument
|
||||
development for constitutive integration and psychological continuity —
|
||||
these are cited most often across the thought-experiment catalog (TE-02,
|
||||
TE-04, TE-05, TE-08) and are the two dimensions where "No" above is doing
|
||||
the most argumentative work in the framework.
|
||||
|
|
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ type: workplan
|
|||
title: "Phase VIII — Paper research agenda and external review pathway"
|
||||
domain: agents
|
||||
repo: soul-frame
|
||||
status: active
|
||||
status: finished
|
||||
flavor: research
|
||||
owner: grok
|
||||
topic_slug: soul-frame
|
||||
|
|
@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ that should not be parked in `SCOPE.md` prose.
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0009-T01
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "3daca5cd-322f-5256-932d-1271f0c040a8"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -49,13 +49,17 @@ Phase I.
|
|||
**Done when:** decision recorded (`record_decision`/`resolve_decision`) with
|
||||
rationale, and `Terminology.md` + `paper/draft.md` updated to match.
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolved 2026-09-28:** retain "Soul" (decision `8429f2ce-5b8a-4d90-810e-f526ec2d0c05`).
|
||||
Updated: `Terminology.md`, `concepts/soul.md`, `OpenQuestions.md` RQ4,
|
||||
`Claims.md` H5, `paper/draft.md` §8/§16/§17.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### T02 — Continuity dimension weighting
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0009-T02
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "7acfed9e-cc8b-5283-a298-90b749a28ee7"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -69,13 +73,18 @@ TE-03, TE-04, TE-08.
|
|||
procedure) is documented in `concepts/identity.md` and validated against the
|
||||
four thought experiments above.
|
||||
|
||||
**Completed 2026-09-28:** lexicographic priority procedure (structural gate
|
||||
→ branch check → gradualness check → softer dimensions decide strength
|
||||
within the gate) added to `concepts/identity.md`; walked through TE-02,
|
||||
TE-03, TE-04, TE-08.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### T03 — Recognition's seat: Being vs. Social Being
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0009-T03
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: low
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "223e14d8-7bdf-5c49-9650-6fba70840c3c"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -87,13 +96,18 @@ individual cross into Social Beinghood?
|
|||
**Done when:** `concepts/being.md` / `concepts/recognition.md` state a
|
||||
testable boundary condition, checked against TE-05 and TE-09.
|
||||
|
||||
**Completed 2026-09-28:** three-part test (intentional recognition +
|
||||
addressability + model persistence across episodes, on at least one side)
|
||||
added to `concepts/recognition.md`, cross-referenced from `concepts/being.md`;
|
||||
walked through TE-09 (asymmetric start) and TE-05 (per-level nested test).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### T04 — Empirical/operational metrics scoping
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0009-T04
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: low
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "81a4c87d-cff5-5448-acf2-8c170301a014"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -105,13 +119,17 @@ task — full metric development may become its own workplan.
|
|||
**Done when:** a scoping note exists identifying which axes are plausibly
|
||||
measurable now vs. which require new instruments.
|
||||
|
||||
**Completed 2026-09-28:** `research/metrics-scoping-note.md` — per-code
|
||||
table for B1–B8 and the continuity profile; found the B-axis (P1–P12) is
|
||||
blocked on enumeration, not metrics, as a prerequisite gap.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### T05 — Moral/legal personhood companion line (explicitly separate)
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0009-T05
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: low
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "42f2de8a-c9cd-5af5-b42d-3f6cac5eb301"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -126,13 +144,17 @@ do not attempt the mapping itself here.
|
|||
`research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md`) stating scope,
|
||||
non-goals, and the explicit boundary against the descriptive core.
|
||||
|
||||
**Completed 2026-09-28:** `research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md`
|
||||
— scope, four non-goals, and relationship to existing gap-sketch material;
|
||||
explicitly not opened as a workplan yet.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### T06 — External review / publication pathway decision
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0009-T06
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "38aa9a5a-552c-555d-a27d-c8f84a76128b"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -143,3 +165,23 @@ further revision cycles before either. This is a founder-gate decision.
|
|||
|
||||
**Done when:** decision recorded via `record_decision`/`resolve_decision`
|
||||
naming the chosen pathway and next concrete step.
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolved 2026-09-28:** internal circulation only, as paper-one for
|
||||
coulomb-research, following the same staged trajectory (internal →
|
||||
pre-print → journal target) as coulomb-research's own paper-zero (decision
|
||||
`cf950384-8bc6-4156-9caf-85b5d4a7ea25`). Recorded in `paper/draft.md` status
|
||||
header. Next concrete step: internal review inside coulomb-research once
|
||||
that facility is set up; no external action required yet.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Closing note (2026-09-28)
|
||||
|
||||
All six tasks complete. T01 and T06 were founder-gate decisions (Soul
|
||||
naming affects the project's own name/mnemonic; publication pathway is a
|
||||
business decision) and were resolved with Bernd before implementation;
|
||||
T02–T05 were research/documentation tasks executed directly.
|
||||
|
||||
**Residual:** T04 and T05 each recommended follow-on work that is
|
||||
multi-step. Bundled as **SOUL-WP-0010**, left `proposed` for review rather
|
||||
than started.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
95
workplans/SOUL-WP-0010-metrics-and-personhood-mapping.md
Normal file
95
workplans/SOUL-WP-0010-metrics-and-personhood-mapping.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0010
|
||||
type: workplan
|
||||
title: "Phase IX — P-axis enumeration, metrics instruments, and moral/legal companion line (slice 1)"
|
||||
domain: agents
|
||||
repo: soul-frame
|
||||
status: proposed
|
||||
flavor: research
|
||||
owner: grok
|
||||
topic_slug: soul-frame
|
||||
priority: low
|
||||
created: "2026-09-28"
|
||||
updated: "2026-09-28"
|
||||
depends_on:
|
||||
- SOUL-WP-0009
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# SOUL-WP-0010 — Phase IX: Metrics and Personhood Mapping (Slice 1)
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Residual of SOUL-WP-0009. Two of its completed tasks (T04 metrics scoping,
|
||||
T05 moral/legal charter) each recommended follow-on work that is multi-step
|
||||
and should not sit only as prose in their source notes:
|
||||
|
||||
- `research/metrics-scoping-note.md` found the B-axis (P1–P12) blocked on
|
||||
enumeration, and recommended prioritizing instrument development for
|
||||
constitutive integration (B3) and psychological continuity.
|
||||
- `research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md` recommended a
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Depends on
|
||||
|
||||
- **SOUL-WP-0009** Phase VIII research agenda (finished 2026-09-28)
|
||||
|
||||
## Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
### T01 — Enumerate P1–P12 explicitly
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0010-T01
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
`concepts/personhood.md` currently references P1–P12 as a profile without
|
||||
itemizing each code the way `concepts/being.md` itemizes B1–B8. Write out
|
||||
the twelve dimensions explicitly, sourced from Phase III personhood
|
||||
literature (Dennett cluster conditions; trait/social-cognitive personality
|
||||
psychology).
|
||||
|
||||
**Done when:** `concepts/personhood.md` has a P1–P12 table matching B1–B8's
|
||||
specificity.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### T02 — Instrument scoping for constitutive integration and psychological continuity
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0010-T02
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: low
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Per `research/metrics-scoping-note.md`'s recommendation, scope (not build)
|
||||
candidate instruments for B3 (constitutive integration) and psychological
|
||||
continuity specifically — the two dimensions doing the most argumentative
|
||||
work across the thought-experiment catalog with no existing metric.
|
||||
|
||||
**Done when:** a follow-up note names at least one candidate operational
|
||||
approach per dimension, or explicitly states none is currently viable.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### T03 — Legal personhood precedent survey (first slice only)
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: SOUL-WP-0010-T03
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: low
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Per the moral/legal charter's non-goals, take **only** the first scoped
|
||||
slice: a survey of legal personhood precedent (corporate personhood, animal
|
||||
welfare/rights law, AI legal-personality proposals) extending
|
||||
`research/law-governance/sp-gh-legal-gap-sketch.md`. Do not attempt moral
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue