diff --git a/Claims.md b/Claims.md index 3faf419..a61b515 100644 --- a/Claims.md +++ b/Claims.md @@ -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 diff --git a/OpenQuestions.md b/OpenQuestions.md index 45f2cc6..59c2a54 100644 --- a/OpenQuestions.md +++ b/OpenQuestions.md @@ -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 diff --git a/Terminology.md b/Terminology.md index ca510ab..e1fe80b 100644 --- a/Terminology.md +++ b/Terminology.md @@ -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 | diff --git a/concepts/being.md b/concepts/being.md index 5f5bebc..6066198 100644 --- a/concepts/being.md +++ b/concepts/being.md @@ -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. diff --git a/concepts/identity.md b/concepts/identity.md index ec97ab9..71c0724 100644 --- a/concepts/identity.md +++ b/concepts/identity.md @@ -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` diff --git a/concepts/recognition.md b/concepts/recognition.md index 44be84b..c9447c6 100644 --- a/concepts/recognition.md +++ b/concepts/recognition.md @@ -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 diff --git a/concepts/soul.md b/concepts/soul.md index 414b390..45383d1 100644 --- a/concepts/soul.md +++ b/concepts/soul.md @@ -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 diff --git a/paper/draft.md b/paper/draft.md index 75d47ac..fce58d8 100644 --- a/paper/draft.md +++ b/paper/draft.md @@ -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 diff --git a/research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md b/research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bbc8e0a --- /dev/null +++ b/research/law-governance/moral-legal-personhood-charter.md @@ -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. diff --git a/research/metrics-scoping-note.md b/research/metrics-scoping-note.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f4eb1b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/metrics-scoping-note.md @@ -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. diff --git a/workplans/SOUL-WP-0009-paper-agenda-and-external-review.md b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0009-paper-agenda-and-external-review.md index 5e25022..c30d410 100644 --- a/workplans/SOUL-WP-0009-paper-agenda-and-external-review.md +++ b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0009-paper-agenda-and-external-review.md @@ -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. diff --git a/workplans/SOUL-WP-0010-metrics-and-personhood-mapping.md b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0010-metrics-and-personhood-mapping.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e0e5f3e --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0010-metrics-and-personhood-mapping.md @@ -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.