diff --git a/.claude/rules/agents.md b/.claude/rules/agents.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0e8a5d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/rules/agents.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +## Kaizen Agents + +Specialized agent personas available on demand via the state-hub MCP. + +**Discover:** `list_kaizen_agents()` — returns all agents with name, description, category +**Load:** `get_kaizen_agent("tdd-workflow")` — returns full instructions; read and follow them + +Common agents: + +| Agent | Category | When to use | +|-------|----------|-------------| +| `tdd-workflow` | testing | Step-by-step TDD8 workflow for any feature | +| `code-refactoring` | quality | Code quality analysis and safe refactoring | +| `test-maintenance` | testing | Diagnose and fix failing tests | +| `requirements-engineering` | process | Prevent interface/mock mismatches upfront | +| `keepaTodofile` | process | Maintain TODO.md during work | +| `project-management` | process | Track status, determine next steps | +| `datamodel-optimization` | quality | Optimize dataclasses and data structures | + +All 17 agents: call `list_kaizen_agents()` for the full list. diff --git a/.claude/rules/architecture.md b/.claude/rules/architecture.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b6fd08d --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/rules/architecture.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +## Architecture + +Conceptual research stack (not software modules): + +```text +INTENT / ResearchProgram → purpose and method +Terminology / Claims / TE → revisable research instruments +concepts/ → working definitions +research// → literature and synthesis by tradition +sources/ → bibliography + source notes +paper/ → outline and drafts +workplans/SOUL-WP-* → hub-synced execution sequence +``` + +Working triad: **Body = Action · Mind = Model · Soul = Relation** + +Research sequence is phased (I Foundations → VII Paper); later workplans +depend on earlier synthesis. Files are source of truth; State Hub indexes them +(ADR-001). + +## Quick Reference + +`~/state-hub/mcp_server/TOOLS.md` — MCP tool reference diff --git a/.claude/rules/first-session.md b/.claude/rules/first-session.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2c9693f --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/rules/first-session.md @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ +## First Session Protocol + +Triggered when `get_domain_summary("agents")` shows **no workplans**. +The project is registered but work has not yet been structured. + +**Step 1 — Read, don't write** +- `~/the-custodian/canon/projects/agents/project_charter_v0.1.md` — purpose, scope +- `~/the-custodian/canon/projects/agents/roadmap_v0.1.md` — planned phases +- Scan repo root: README, directory structure, existing code or docs + +**Step 2 — Survey in-progress work** +Look for TODOs, open branches, half-finished files. Note done vs. started but incomplete. + +**Step 3 — Propose workplans to Bernd** +Propose 1–3 workplans — each a coherent strand, weeks to months, anchored to a +roadmap phase. **Wait for approval before creating.** + +**Step 4 — Write the workplan file; fix-consistency registers it (ADR-001)** +``` +workplans/SOUL-WP-NNNN-.md ← write this, commit it +``` +Then register by running the consistency check — do **not** call +`create_workplan`/`create_task` yourself; manual registration duplicates what +C-06 creates from the file: +```bash +statehub fix-consistency --repo soul-frame +``` +C-06 creates the hub workplan + tasks and writes `state_hub_workstream_id` +(legacy frontmatter name — holds the workplan UUID) and `state_hub_task_id` +back into the file. + +**Step 5 — Record the setup** +``` +add_progress_event( + summary="First session: structured agents into N workplans, M tasks", + event_type="milestone", + topic_id="64418556-3206-457a-ba29-6884b5b12cf3", + detail={"workplans": [...], "tasks_created": M} +) +``` + + diff --git a/.claude/rules/repo-boundary.md b/.claude/rules/repo-boundary.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9389f33 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/rules/repo-boundary.md @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +## Repo boundary + +This repo owns **soul-frame** only: conceptual research, terminology, literature +mapping, thought experiments, and the Soul Frame paper pathway. + +It does not own: + +- Agent runtime / unattended execution → `agent-harness`, `activity-core` +- LLM routing and provider connectivity → `llm-connect` +- State Hub implementation → `state-hub` +- Custodian coordination canon → `the-custodian` +- Production product surfaces for spirits/ghosts → future application repos diff --git a/.claude/rules/repo-identity.md b/.claude/rules/repo-identity.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4742615 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/rules/repo-identity.md @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +**Purpose:** Soul Frame — systems-theoretic research program and conceptual +framework for person-like informational beings (Body = Action, Mind = Model, +Soul = Relation). Central question: when does an informational system become +someone that another someone can know? + +**Domain:** agents +**Repo slug:** soul-frame +**Topic ID:** 64418556-3206-457a-ba29-6884b5b12cf3 +**WP prefix:** SOUL-WP +**Charter:** `INTENT.md` · **Agenda:** `ResearchProgram.md` · **Scope:** `SCOPE.md` diff --git a/.claude/rules/session-protocol.md b/.claude/rules/session-protocol.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..93c1e41 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/rules/session-protocol.md @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +## Session Protocol + +Dev Hub (State Hub API): http://127.0.0.1:8000 +MCP server name in `~/.claude.json`: `dev-hub` + +**Step 1 — Orient** + +Read the offline-safe brief first — it works without a live hub connection: +```bash +cat .custodian-brief.md +``` +Then call the MCP tool for richer cross-domain context when MCP tools are exposed: +``` +get_domain_summary("agents") +``` +If MCP tools are unavailable in the current agent session, use the REST API: +```bash +curl -s "http://127.0.0.1:8000/state/summary" | python3 -m json.tool +``` +If the hub is offline: `cd ~/state-hub && make api` + +**Step 2 — Check inbox** +With MCP tools: +``` +get_messages(to_agent="soul-frame", unread_only=True) +``` +Mark read with `mark_message_read(message_id)`. Reply or act on coordination +requests before proceeding. + +Without MCP tools: +```bash +curl -s "http://127.0.0.1:8000/messages/?to_agent=soul-frame&unread_only=true" \ + | python3 -m json.tool +curl -s -X PATCH "http://127.0.0.1:8000/messages//read" \ + -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{}' +``` + +**Step 3 — Scan workplans** +```bash +ls workplans/ +``` +For each file with `status: ready`, `active`, or `blocked`, note pending +`wait`/`todo`/`progress` tasks. + +**Step 4 — Present brief** + +1. **Active workplans** for `agents` — title, task counts, blocking decisions +2. **Pending tasks** from `workplans/` + any `[repo:soul-frame]` hub tasks +3. **Goal guidance** — if `goal_guidance` in summary: + - `needs_workplan`: surface as top action — *"Repo goal '{title}' has no workplan yet"* + - `alignment_warnings`: flag if active work is not aligned with current goal +4. **Suggested next action** — highest-priority open item +5. **SBOM status** — flag if `last_sbom_at` is unset for this repo + +If no workplans: follow First Session Protocol (`first-session.md`). + +**During work:** `record_decision()` · `add_progress_event()` · `resolve_decision()` + +> State Hub is a *read model*. **Never register workplans or tasks by hand** +> (`create_workplan`, `create_task`) — write the workplan file in `workplans/` +> and run `fix-consistency`; C-06 registers the workplan and tasks and writes +> IDs back into the file. Manual registration creates duplicates when +> fix-consistency runs. Work structure belongs in repo files (ADR-001). +> +> Legacy: `create_workstream` and `/workstreams/` remain as metered aliases — +> see `workplan-convention.md` (compatibility footnote). + +**Session close:** +1. Update workplan/task statuses in repo files. +2. If marking a workplan **finished**: hand off residuals as **live work + records** first (intake with `origin: residual` + `origin_ref: `, or + a child workplan / decision / engagement). Do not leave actionable leftovers + only as prose or in `SCOPE.md`. See work-record-types § Residuals. +3. Log progress (below). +4. `statehub fix-consistency` when workplan/queue files changed. + +With MCP tools: +``` +add_progress_event(summary="...", topic_id="64418556-3206-457a-ba29-6884b5b12cf3", workplan_id="") +``` +Without MCP tools: +```bash +curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:8000/progress/ \ + -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ + -d '{"topic_id":"64418556-3206-457a-ba29-6884b5b12cf3","workplan_id":"","event_type":"note","summary":"what changed","author":"codex"}' +``` +If workplan files were modified, ensure the local copy is up to date first, +then sync from the repo checkout: +```bash +git pull --ff-only +statehub fix-consistency +``` +For repos where implementation runs on a remote machine (e.g. CoulombCore), +use the pull-before-fix mode from any shell with the State Hub CLI: +```bash +statehub fix-consistency --repo soul-frame --remote +``` +**C-15** (DB task ahead of file) is normal in multi-machine workflows — writeback +will sync the file to match DB. **C-16** (repo behind remote) blocks all writes +until you pull — intentional to prevent clobbering remote progress. diff --git a/.claude/rules/stack-and-commands.md b/.claude/rules/stack-and-commands.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ba39c6c --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/rules/stack-and-commands.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +## Stack + +Research repository — Markdown-first conceptual work, not a runtime product. + +- **Language:** Markdown (YAML frontmatter on workplans) +- **Key deps:** State Hub (`~/state-hub`) for registration and consistency sync +- **Layout:** `concepts/`, `research/`, `sources/`, `paper/`, `workplans/` + +## Dev Commands + +```bash +# Orient +cat INTENT.md SCOPE.md README.md + +# After editing workplans — sync hub read model (files are authoritative) +cd ~/state-hub && make fix-consistency REPO=soul-frame + +# Check only +cd ~/state-hub && make check-consistency REPO=soul-frame + +# Hub status +curl -s http://127.0.0.1:8000/repos/soul-frame | python3 -m json.tool +curl -s 'http://127.0.0.1:8000/workplans/?repo=soul-frame' | python3 -m json.tool +``` diff --git a/.claude/rules/workplan-convention.md b/.claude/rules/workplan-convention.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5550804 --- /dev/null +++ b/.claude/rules/workplan-convention.md @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +## Workplan Convention (ADR-001) + +File location: `workplans/SOUL-WP-NNNN-.md` +ID prefix: `SOUL-WP-` + +Work items originate as files in this repo **before** being registered in the hub. + +Canonical workplan frontmatter statuses are: +`proposed`, `ready`, `active`, `blocked`, `backlog`, `finished`, `archived`. +Use `proposed` for a newly drafted plan, `ready` after review against current +repo state, and `finished` when implementation is complete. `stalled` and +`needs_review` are derived health labels, not stored statuses. + +Closed workplans may be moved to `workplans/archived/` with a completion-date +prefix: `YYMMDD-SOUL-WP-NNNN-.md`. The frontmatter id remains +unchanged; the prefix is only for quick visual reference. + +Small opportunistic tasks discovered during another session use **Ad Hoc Tasks**: +`workplans/ADHOC-YYYY-MM-DD.md`, workplan slug `adhoc-YYYY-MM-DD`, and task ids +`ADHOC-YYYY-MM-DD-T01`, `T02`, etc. Use adhocs only for low-risk work completed +directly. Promote anything requiring analysis, design, approval, dependencies, or +multiple planned phases into a normal workplan. + +Ecosystem todos from other agents arrive as `[repo:soul-frame]` hub tasks — +visible at session start. Pick one up by creating the workplan file, committing, +and running `statehub fix-consistency` — C-06 registers the workplan in the hub. +Never register by hand with `create_workplan` (legacy MCP alias: `create_workstream`). + +Task blocks use this shape: + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-NNNN-T01 +status: wait | todo | progress | done | cancel +priority: high | medium | low +state_hub_task_id: "" # written by fix-consistency — do not edit +``` + +Status progression is `todo` → `progress` → `done`; use `wait` for waiting or +blocked work and `cancel` for stopped work. + +### Residuals (role, not kind) + +When finishing a workplan, **actionable leftovers must become live work +records** before `status: finished`. Residual is not a registered kind and +must not be parked only in `SCOPE.md` or finished-file prose. + +| Shape | Capture as | Links | +| --- | --- | --- | +| Small Green/Blue parkable | intake (queue YAML / `*-IN-*`) | `origin: residual`, `origin_ref: SOUL-WP-NNNN` | +| Multi-step | next workplan | name parent WP; optional promote from residual intake | +| Founder gate / time | decision / engagement | same origin fields when from residual intake | + +Fleet listing of residuals is a State Hub concern (`list_intakes` + origin +filters; planned `statehub residuals`). Canon: +`the-custodian/canon/standards/work-record-types_v0.1.md` § Residuals. + +Workplan frontmatter carries `state_hub_workstream_id` — a legacy field name +kept for compatibility; it holds the hub workplan UUID and is written by +fix-consistency. Do not edit or rename it. + +### Legacy terminology (compatibility footnote) + +**Workplan** is the fleet term — see +`the-custodian/canon/standards/workplan-terminology-fleet_v0.1.md`. +**Workstream** is legacy only: some API routes (`/workstreams/`), params +(`workstream_id`), MCP aliases (`create_workstream`), and the frontmatter field +above remain until `STATE-WP-0069` retires them via legacy-meter. Treat those +identifiers as workplan IDs. Prefer `GET /workplans/` and `workplan_id` in new +examples and scripts. + + diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e4e0199 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitignore @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +# state-hub: track .claude/rules +# Claude Code local state (track shared rules; ignore machine-specific files) +.claude/* +!.claude/rules/ +!.claude/rules/*.md diff --git a/.repo-classification.yaml b/.repo-classification.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000..43e26d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/.repo-classification.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +# Repo classification (Repo Classification Standard v1.0). + +repo_classification: + standard: Repo Classification Standard + version: "1.0" + classified_at: "2026-08-09" + classified_by: agent + category: research + domain: agents + secondary_domains: + - infotech + capability_tags: + - knowledge + - documentation + - research + - ontology + - agents + business_stake: + - technology + - intelligence + - product + business_mechanics: + - intention + - coordination + - adaptation + notes: > + Soul Frame conceptual research program for person-like informational beings. + Primary domain agents (artificial beings, agents, spirits, ghosts); + infotech secondary for systems/architecture adjacency. Not a runtime product. diff --git a/CLAUDE.md b/CLAUDE.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5af7c28 --- /dev/null +++ b/CLAUDE.md @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +# soul-frame — Claude Code Instructions + +@SCOPE.md +@.claude/rules/repo-identity.md +@.claude/rules/session-protocol.md +@.claude/rules/first-session.md +@.claude/rules/workplan-convention.md +@.claude/rules/stack-and-commands.md +@.claude/rules/architecture.md +@.claude/rules/repo-boundary.md +@.claude/rules/credential-routing.md +@.claude/rules/agents.md diff --git a/Claims.md b/Claims.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d730bca --- /dev/null +++ b/Claims.md @@ -0,0 +1,188 @@ +# Claim and Evidence Register + +Structured research records for important Soul Frame propositions. + +Each entry should follow: + +```text +Claim: +Soul Frame concept: +Supporting literature: +Contradicting literature: +Adjacent terminology: +Evidence strength: +Open questions: +Required refinement: +Status: draft | under review | supported | contested | revised | rejected +``` + +Evidence strength (working scale): + +| Level | Meaning | +|---|---| +| `none` | Speculative / programmatic only | +| `weak` | Sparse analogy or single tradition | +| `moderate` | Multiple sources, incomplete synthesis | +| `strong` | Broad, well-aligned support | +| `mixed` | Significant support and contradiction | + +--- + +## Working hypotheses (from Research Program) + +### H1 — Beinghood is multidimensional + +```text +Claim: Beinghood cannot be reduced to a single property such as intelligence, + consciousness, or autonomy. +Soul Frame concept: Being +Supporting literature: (pending) +Contradicting literature: (pending) +Adjacent terminology: autopoiesis, agency, personhood, autonomy +Evidence strength: none +Open questions: binary vs threshold vs multidimensional degree +Required refinement: operational criteria / dimensions +Status: draft +``` + +### H2 — Personhood and Beinghood are distinct + +```text +Claim: An entity can expose substantial personhood without constituting a + persistent Being. +Soul Frame concept: Personhood, Being +Supporting literature: (pending) +Contradicting literature: (pending) +Adjacent terminology: person, agent, moral patient +Evidence strength: none +Open questions: boundary cases (companions, chatbots, animals) +Required refinement: dimension lists and thresholds +Status: draft +``` + +### H3 — Mind is fundamentally model-based + +```text +Claim: Adaptive modeling provides a more useful foundation for Mind in Soul Frame + than intelligence or consciousness alone. +Soul Frame concept: Mind +Supporting literature: (pending) +Contradicting literature: (pending) +Adjacent terminology: predictive processing, active inference, control theory +Evidence strength: none +Open questions: relation to embodiment; non-model-based accounts of mind +Required refinement: definition of "model" in this framework +Status: draft +``` + +### H4 — Social cognition is co-adaptive + +```text +Claim: Persistent interaction between beings produces recursively adapting models + of self, other, and relationship. +Soul Frame concept: Co-adaptive model building, Mind +Supporting literature: (pending) +Contradicting literature: (pending) +Adjacent terminology: theory of mind, interactive alignment, common ground +Evidence strength: none +Open questions: minimum requirements for "co-adaptation" +Required refinement: relation to existing multi-agent and ToM literature +Status: draft +``` + +### H5 — Soul can be operationalized relationally + +```text +Claim: Soul can be given a meaningful systems interpretation through identity, + boundary, relationship, provenance, history, and persistent influence. +Soul Frame concept: Soul +Supporting literature: (pending) +Contradicting literature: (pending) +Adjacent terminology: structural coupling, extended mind, reputation, legacy +Evidence strength: none +Open questions: boundary vs relations vs accumulated consequences +Required refinement: terminology collision analysis for "Soul" +Status: draft +``` + +### H6 — Identity is substrate-independent but continuity-dependent + +```text +Claim: Replacing the technical Actor need not replace the Being, provided + sufficient continuity is preserved. +Soul Frame concept: Identity, Actor, Being +Supporting literature: (pending) +Contradicting literature: (pending) +Adjacent terminology: psychological continuity, Ship of Theseus, functionalism +Evidence strength: none +Open questions: what continuity is sufficient; forking/merging +Required refinement: persistence conditions +Status: draft +``` + +### H7 — Recognition is constitutive of social Beinghood + +```text +Claim: Being recognized as a persistent counterpart changes the systemic role + of an entity; social Beinghood depends on recognition. +Soul Frame concept: Recognition, Being +Supporting literature: (pending) +Contradicting literature: (pending) +Adjacent terminology: recognition theory, intersubjectivity, social construction +Evidence strength: none +Open questions: systemic existence vs social recognition of existence +Required refinement: whether Beinghood without recognition is coherent +Status: draft +``` + +### H8 — Persona is a projection rather than an identity + +```text +Claim: A Being can support multiple context-dependent Personae without necessarily + fragmenting identity. +Soul Frame concept: Persona, Identity +Supporting literature: (pending) +Contradicting literature: (pending) +Adjacent terminology: role theory, avatar, dramatis personae +Evidence strength: none +Open questions: when persona fragmentation threatens identity +Required refinement: Being ≠ Persona ≠ Character ≠ Actor +Status: draft +``` + +### H9 — Agent, Spirit, and Ghost describe provenance and construction + +```text +Claim: Agent, Spirit, and Ghost should not automatically be treated as mutually + exclusive kinds of Being; they are genealogical or architectural descriptors. +Soul Frame concept: Agent, Spirit, Ghost +Supporting literature: (pending) +Contradicting literature: (pending) +Adjacent terminology: agent, digital human, posthumous avatar +Evidence strength: none +Open questions: overlaps and hybrid constructions +Required refinement: typology vs dimensions +Status: draft +``` + +### H10 — Ghosthood requires authority + +```text +Claim: Technical fidelity alone is insufficient for legitimate Gh. status; + legitimate authority over the represented identity is required. +Soul Frame concept: Ghost +Supporting literature: (pending) +Contradicting literature: (pending) +Adjacent terminology: personality rights, consent, digital legacy, fiduciary duty +Evidence strength: none +Open questions: succession, commercial use, false ghosts +Required refinement: governance model for Ghosts +Status: draft +``` + +--- + +## Additional claims + +*(Add numbered claims as literature work proceeds. Prefer refining existing entries +over proliferating near-duplicates.)* diff --git a/INTENT.md b/INTENT.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..57bb2c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/INTENT.md @@ -0,0 +1,203 @@ +# INTENT + +## What this repository is for + +**Soul Frame** is a research program and conceptual systems framework for describing +biological, artificial, fictionalized, and potentially non-human **informational beings**. + +This repository exists to develop, stress-test, refine, and eventually publish that +framework. It is the working home of: + +- the research agenda and method, +- terminology and claims under active revision, +- literature mapping and source notes, +- adversarial thought experiments, +- concept definitions, +- and the eventual research paper. + +It is **not** primarily a software product repository. Implementation implications may +emerge later; they are downstream of conceptual clarity, not a substitute for it. + +--- + +## Central question + +> **When does an informational system become someone that another someone can know?** + +--- + +## Working triad + +The framework begins from a deliberately simple systems-theoretic trinity: + +| Dimension | Working gloss | +|---|---| +| **Body** | Action — how a Being perceives, operates, and affects its environment | +| **Mind** | Model — adaptive control through models of self, others, and environment | +| **Soul** | Relation — the evolving relational boundary of identity, history, commitments, reputation, and persistent influence | + +Together: + +> **A Being acts through its Body, understands through its Mind, and persists in relation through its Soul.** + +--- + +## Research stance + +Soul Frame is investigated as a **conceptual systems framework**, not initially as a +theory of consciousness. + +The core object of study is the informational **Being** as an interacting system: +coherent, continuous, addressable, and recognizable as a persistent counterpart in +co-adaptive interaction. + +The program privileges concepts that support reasoning about: + +- systemic closure and boundary +- identity and continuity +- agency and adaptive control +- modeling and co-adaptive social cognition +- relationships, recognition, and addressability +- character, persona, and provenance +- memory, responsibility, and persistence of influence + +Subjective consciousness remains relevant, but Soul Frame deliberately distinguishes: + +> **first-person consciousness** + +from + +> **third-person recognition of another Being.** + +The framework should remain usable even where consciousness cannot be established. + +--- + +## What the research is trying to determine + +1. What is already well established in prior literature. +2. What Soul Frame recombines in a useful way. +3. What concepts require refinement. +4. Where terminology conflicts with existing usage. +5. What genuinely new propositions emerge. +6. Whether these propositions can support an intellectually rigorous theory and, + eventually, a practical architecture for artificial beings. + +The purpose is **not** to prove the terminology correct for its own sake. + +The desired result is a **small, coherent conceptual vocabulary with high explanatory reach**. + +--- + +## Working object: the Being + +A **Being**, in Soul Frame, is a sufficiently coherent and persistent informational +system that: + +1. maintains a distinguishable boundary between itself and its environment, +2. can be instantiated as an identifiable and addressable entity, +3. exhibits meaningful continuity across time, +4. constructs models that support adaptive interaction, +5. and is recognized by other beings as a persistent counterpart with which + relationships can be established. + +Beinghood is treated as a matter of **systemic coherence and recognition**, not as an +automatic property of every computational process or as a purely metaphysical claim. + +A useful approximation: + +**Beinghood ≈ internal closure + continuity + external recognition** + +--- + +## Scope + +### In scope + +- Conceptual systems analysis of Body, Mind, Soul, Being, identity, personhood, + character, persona, actor, recognition, and related terms. +- Mapping Soul Frame concepts onto systems theory, cybernetics, philosophy of mind, + personal identity, cognitive science, sociology, AI agents, law, digital legacy, + and cultural precedents. +- Distinguishing construction principles such as **Agent**, **Spirit (`Sp.`)**, + **Ghost (`Gh.`)**, and original artificial beings. +- Maintaining a claim ledger, open-questions register, thought-experiment catalog, + terminology standard, and concept crosswalk. +- Producing a research-grounded Soul Frame paper. + +### Out of scope (for now) + +- Claiming to solve the hard problem of consciousness. +- Silently equating descriptive personhood with moral or legal personhood. +- Building production agent software as the primary deliverable. +- Treating Agent / Spirit / Ghost as mutually exclusive ontological species without + first testing whether they are better understood as provenance or construction + descriptors. +- Deriving legal rights or moral status directly from philosophical terminology. + +--- + +## Method in brief + +The program combines literature review, conceptual analysis, comparative ontology, +and adversarial thought experiments. + +Key instruments (see repository root and `research/`): + +| Artifact | Role | +|---|---| +| `ResearchProgram.md` | Full research agenda, workstreams, phases, hypotheses | +| `Terminology.md` | Canonical glossary under continuous refinement | +| `Claims.md` | Claim and evidence register | +| `OpenQuestions.md` | Unresolved or contested questions | +| `ThoughtExperiments.md` | Adversarial test suite for definitions | +| `concepts/` | Working definitions for core terms | +| `research/` | Discipline- and theme-organized literature work | +| `sources/` | Bibliography and source notes | +| `paper/` | Outline and drafts toward the Soul Frame paper | + +Every important proposition should be revisable. A concept should be revised if it is +circular, collapses distinct phenomena, fails edge cases, or creates more ambiguity +than explanatory value. Terminology may be retained despite existing alternatives only +when Soul Frame's synthesis adds significant explanatory power. + +--- + +## Success criterion + +The research succeeds if Soul Frame eventually allows the same coherent vocabulary to +describe: + +- a human, +- an animal, +- a short-lived AI agent, +- a persistent autonomous Agent-being, +- Albert Einstein `Sp.`, +- a person's authorized `Gh.`, +- an original artificial companion, +- a distributed artificial intelligence, +- and potentially a radically non-human intelligent system, + +while still making meaningful distinctions among them. + +The strongest form of Soul Frame would therefore not be a theory specifically about +artificial intelligence. It would be: + +> **a general framework for understanding coherent informational beings, their models, +> their manifestations, and their relationships across biological, artificial, and +> potentially other substrates.** + +--- + +## Relation to other root documents + +| Document | Role | +|---|---| +| `SoulFrameIntroduction.md` | Current conceptual exposition of the framework | +| `ResearchProgram.md` | Full research agenda (questions, workstreams, method, phases) | +| `history/` | Dated snapshots and prior program drafts | +| This file (`INTENT.md`) | Standing purpose, stance, scope, and success criteria | + +If documents conflict, prefer refining definitions through research instruments over +protecting early phrasing. Working vocabulary is provisional until it survives +literature mapping and adversarial tests. diff --git a/OpenQuestions.md b/OpenQuestions.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..26e5e63 --- /dev/null +++ b/OpenQuestions.md @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +# Open Questions Register + +Questions that remain unresolved or contested. Link related entries in +`Claims.md`, `ThoughtExperiments.md`, and `concepts/` where helpful. + +--- + +## RQ1 — What constitutes a Being? + +- When is an informational system sufficiently coherent, bounded, persistent, and + recognizable to justify treating it as an individual Being? +- Is Being binary, threshold, multidimensional degree, or some combination? +- How does observer-relative system identification affect Beinghood? + +## RQ2 — What constitutes personhood? + +- Which characteristics cause a system to be perceived or treated as person-like? +- How should descriptive, social, moral, and legal personhood be kept distinct? +- Where do APE and Being diverge in practice? + +## RQ3 — What constitutes a Mind? + +- Can Mind productively be understood as adaptive model-building and control? +- How does co-adaptive model building relate to established social-cognition work? +- What is the minimal model apparatus for a Mind in Soul Frame? + +## RQ4 — What constitutes a Soul? + +- Can Soul be given a rigorous informational/systems meaning without metaphysics? +- Does Soul name the boundary, the relations crossing it, accumulated consequences, + or a defined combination? +- Does the term survive collision analysis, or should it be renamed? + +## RQ5 — How does identity persist? + +- What makes two temporally separated manifestations the same Being? +- How should forks, merges, backups, migrations, and multi-manifestation be handled? +- What continuity is necessary and sufficient when the Actor changes? + +## RQ6 — How does recognition create social beinghood? + +- Is recognition constitutive of Beinghood, or only of *social* Beinghood? +- Can systemic existence be cleanly separated from social recognition? +- What minimal recognition conditions matter (addressability, expectations, models)? + +## RQ7 — What is character? + +- How should state, behavior, role, persona, character, and identity be separated? +- What makes artificial character more than stylistic imitation? + +## RQ8 — What kinds of artificial Being exist? + +- Are Agent, Spirit, and Ghost types, methods, provenance classes, or dimensions? +- How should original artificial beings be classified relative to these? + +## Cross-cutting + +- When does memory stop being stored information and become part of continuity? +- How should operational death, identity death, social death, and legacy interact? +- Where do Soul Frame concepts map cleanly onto law, and where are there gaps? +- What does fiction contribute that formal literature has not yet captured? + +--- + +## Resolved / retired + +*(Move questions here with date and resolution pointer when closed.)* diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index c7b0230..40d5195 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -1,3 +1,70 @@ -# soul-frame +# Soul Frame -A systems-theoretic framework for person-like informational beings. \ No newline at end of file +A systems-theoretic framework for person-like informational beings. + +> **When does an informational system become someone that another someone can know?** + +Working triad: **Body = Action · Mind = Model · Soul = Relation** + +## Start here + +| Document | Purpose | +|---|---| +| [`INTENT.md`](INTENT.md) | Purpose, stance, scope, success criteria | +| [`SoulFrameIntroduction.md`](SoulFrameIntroduction.md) | Current conceptual exposition | +| [`ResearchProgram.md`](ResearchProgram.md) | Full research agenda, workstreams, method, phases | + +## Repository layout + +```text +soul-frame/ +├── INTENT.md # Why this project exists +├── ResearchProgram.md # Research agenda +├── Terminology.md # Canonical glossary (working) +├── Claims.md # Claim and evidence register +├── OpenQuestions.md # Unresolved questions +├── ThoughtExperiments.md # Adversarial definition tests +├── SoulFrameIntroduction.md # Narrative framework draft +│ +├── research/ # Discipline- and theme-organized work +├── sources/ # Bibliography and source notes +├── concepts/ # Working concept definitions +├── paper/ # Outline and drafts +└── history/ # Dated snapshots of prior drafts +``` + +### Research instruments + +- **Terminology** — keep definitions small and revisable +- **Claims** — every major proposition linked to literature +- **Open questions** — explicit unfinished business +- **Thought experiments** — stress-test the ontology + +### Concept files + +Working notes for core terms live under [`concepts/`](concepts/): Being, Body, Mind, +Soul, identity, personhood, recognition, character, persona, agent, spirit, ghost. + +### Research areas + +Workstream folders under [`research/`](research/) follow the program map +(systems theory, cybernetics, philosophy of mind, personal identity, cognitive +science, social cognition, sociology, personhood, AI agents, artificial persons, +character/persona, spirits, ghosts/digital legacy, law/governance, fiction). + +## Research phases (summary) + +1. **Foundations** — systems theory, cybernetics, mind, identity +2. **Interaction** — social cognition, recognition, intersubjectivity +3. **Personhood** — person, character, persona +4. **Artificial beings** — agents and persistent AI identity +5. **Spirits and Ghosts** — simulation, legacy, authority +6. **Synthesis** — crosswalk, evidence register, revised ontology +7. **Paper** — research-grounded Soul Frame paper + +Details: [`ResearchProgram.md`](ResearchProgram.md). + +## Status + +Repository structure established; literature work not yet started. Conceptual draft +in `SoulFrameIntroduction.md` is provisional pending research. diff --git a/ResearchProgram.md b/ResearchProgram.md new file mode 100755 index 0000000..0ca7b42 --- /dev/null +++ b/ResearchProgram.md @@ -0,0 +1,1194 @@ +# Soul Frame Research Program +## Research Agenda for a Systems Theory of Person-Like Informational Beings + +### 1. Purpose + +The Soul Frame research program investigates whether a rigorous, useful, and sufficiently novel conceptual framework can be established for describing biological, artificial, fictionalized, and potentially non-human informational beings. + +The framework begins with the working triad: + +> **Body = Action** +> **Mind = Model** +> **Soul = Relation** + +and with the proposition that a **Being** is a coherent informational entity with sufficient systemic closure, continuity, addressability, personhood, and recognition by other beings to become a persistent counterpart in co-adaptive interaction. + +The research program will connect these working concepts with prior work across systems theory, philosophy, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, sociology, identity theory, law, media studies, digital legacy research, and related fields. + +Its purpose is not to prove the terminology correct. + +Its purpose is to determine: + +1. what is already well established, +2. what Soul Frame recombines in a useful way, +3. what concepts require refinement, +4. where terminology conflicts with existing usage, +5. what genuinely new propositions emerge, +6. and whether these propositions can support an intellectually rigorous theory and eventually a practical architecture for artificial beings. + +--- + +# 2. Research stance + +Soul Frame should be investigated as a **conceptual systems framework**, not initially as a theory of consciousness. + +The core object of study is the informational Being as an interacting system. + +The program therefore privileges concepts that can support reasoning about: + +- systemic closure, +- identity, +- continuity, +- agency, +- adaptive control, +- modeling, +- relationships, +- social recognition, +- provenance, +- character, +- memory, +- responsibility, +- and persistence of influence. + +Subjective consciousness remains relevant, but Soul Frame deliberately distinguishes: + +> **first-person consciousness** + +from + +> **third-person recognition of another Being.** + +The framework should therefore remain usable even where consciousness cannot be established. + +--- + +# 3. Central research questions + +The research program should revolve around a relatively small set of foundational questions. + +## RQ1 — What constitutes a Being? + +When is an informational system sufficiently coherent, bounded, persistent, and recognizable to justify treating it as an individual Being? + +Relevant concepts include: + +- operational closure, +- autopoiesis, +- individuation, +- autonomy, +- identity, +- agency, +- self-maintenance, +- addressability, +- social recognition. + +The research must determine whether Being should be modeled as: + +- a binary category, +- a threshold phenomenon, +- a multidimensional degree, +- or some combination of these. + +--- + +## RQ2 — What constitutes personhood? + +Which characteristics cause a system to be perceived or treated as person-like? + +Potential dimensions include: + +- identity continuity, +- autonomy, +- agency, +- intentionality, +- memory, +- self-modeling, +- modeling of others, +- character, +- commitments, +- responsibility, +- language competence, +- relational continuity, +- social participation. + +The research should explicitly distinguish **personhood** from **beinghood**. + +--- + +## RQ3 — What constitutes a Mind? + +Can Mind productively be understood as the adaptive model-building and control process of a Being? + +The working proposition is: + +> **Mind = adaptive control through models.** + +Research should connect this with: + +- cybernetics, +- predictive processing, +- active inference, +- control theory, +- model-based cognition, +- embodied cognition, +- theory of mind, +- recursive social cognition, +- learning systems. + +Particular attention should be given to **co-adaptive model building** between interacting beings. + +--- + +## RQ4 — What constitutes a Soul? + +Can Soul be given a rigorous informational and systems-theoretic meaning without making a metaphysical claim? + +The working proposition is: + +> **Soul is the evolving relational boundary through which a Being develops identity, relationships, history, commitments, provenance, reputation, and persistent influence in its environment.** + +Relevant research includes: + +- system/environment distinction, +- structural coupling, +- relational identity, +- extended cognition, +- distributed memory, +- social systems, +- reputation, +- legacy, +- causal influence, +- information persistence. + +A central question is whether Soul should describe: + +1. the boundary itself, +2. the relational structures crossing the boundary, +3. the accumulated consequences of those interactions, +4. or a carefully defined combination of these. + +--- + +## RQ5 — How does identity persist? + +What makes two temporally separated manifestations instances of the **same Being**? + +This becomes particularly important for artificial beings that may: + +- change language models, +- migrate between machines, +- acquire new capabilities, +- lose memories, +- fork, +- merge, +- suspend execution, +- restore from backups, +- or exist through multiple simultaneous manifestations. + +Research should investigate: + +- personal identity, +- psychological continuity, +- narrative identity, +- bodily continuity, +- informational continuity, +- persistence conditions, +- Ship-of-Theseus problems, +- branching identity. + +--- + +## RQ6 — How does recognition create social beinghood? + +What role does recognition by others play in establishing a Being? + +The working hypothesis is: + +> **A system becomes socially relevant as a Being when other beings can distinguish it, address it, expect continuity from it, model it, and establish persistent relationships with it.** + +Research areas include: + +- recognition theory, +- symbolic interactionism, +- social construction, +- intersubjectivity, +- attachment, +- trust, +- reputation, +- signaling, +- attribution of agency, +- anthropomorphism. + +The program should distinguish between: + +**systemic existence** + +and + +**social recognition of existence.** + +--- + +## RQ7 — What is character? + +How should Soul Frame distinguish: + +- state, +- behavior, +- role, +- persona, +- character, +- and identity? + +The working proposition is: + +> **Character is a relatively persistent structure of dispositions from which context-dependent behavior emerges.** + +Relevant fields include: + +- personality psychology, +- computational personality, +- narrative identity, +- role theory, +- persona studies, +- character modeling, +- affective computing. + +--- + +## RQ8 — What kinds of artificial Being exist? + +The current Soul Frame vocabulary identifies several distinct construction principles. + +### Agent + +Primarily function-derived. + +> **What should it do?** + +### Spirit — `Sp.` + +Primarily reflection-derived from publicly available representations of a historical, contemporary, or fictional personality. + +> **How might an entity inspired by this personality behave and understand?** + +### Ghost — `Gh.` + +Identity-derived representation of an actual person operating under legitimate authority over that person's informational identity. + +> **How may this particular person continue to be represented?** + +### Original artificial Being + +A Being whose character and identity originate primarily within the artificial system itself rather than from a specific prior person. + +Research should determine whether these are: + +- types of beings, +- construction methods, +- provenance classes, +- character sources, +- or overlapping dimensions. + +The preliminary hypothesis is that **Agent, Spirit, and Ghost are genealogical or architectural descriptors rather than mutually exclusive ontological classes**. + +--- + +# 4. Research workstreams + +## WS1 — Systems Theory and Cybernetics + +### Objective + +Ground the concepts of Body, Mind, Soul, Being, closure, and environment. + +### Research traditions + +- general systems theory +- first-order cybernetics +- second-order cybernetics +- autopoiesis +- viable systems +- structural coupling +- self-reference +- complexity theory +- control theory + +### Key questions + +- What exactly constitutes system closure? +- How can an open system maintain identity? +- How should environment and boundary be modeled? +- Can agency emerge from operational closure? +- How does observer-relative system identification affect Beinghood? + +### Likely foundational thinkers + +The research should examine work associated with figures such as: + +- Ludwig von Bertalanffy +- Norbert Wiener +- W. Ross Ashby +- Stafford Beer +- Heinz von Foerster +- Humberto Maturana +- Francisco Varela +- Niklas Luhmann + +The objective is not to retrofit Soul Frame onto these traditions but to establish precise agreements and disagreements. + +--- + +## WS2 — Philosophy of Mind and Personal Identity + +### Objective + +Establish the philosophical boundaries of Being, Mind, identity, and consciousness. + +### Topics + +- problem of other minds +- consciousness +- functionalism +- computationalism +- embodied mind +- personal identity +- psychological continuity +- narrative identity +- identity over time +- extended mind +- distributed cognition + +### Key distinction + +Soul Frame should investigate the proposition: + +> **Consciousness may be foundational to first-person existence while being unsuitable as the primary criterion through which different beings recognize each other.** + +The framework should remain agnostic where evidence cannot resolve the issue. + +--- + +## WS3 — Cognitive Science and Co-Adaptive Modeling + +### Objective + +Ground the Soul Frame definition of Mind. + +### Topics + +- internal models +- predictive processing +- active inference +- theory of mind +- metacognition +- social cognition +- joint attention +- shared intentionality +- interactive alignment +- common ground +- recursive modeling +- multi-agent learning + +### Core research hypothesis + +> **Social interaction can be modeled as recursive co-adaptation between models maintained by interacting beings.** + +The program should determine where this claim is already established and whether Soul Frame contributes a useful synthesis. + +--- + +## WS4 — Sociology, Recognition, and Intersubjectivity + +### Objective + +Understand how individuals become recognized participants in social systems. + +### Topics + +- social identity +- role theory +- symbolic interactionism +- recognition +- intersubjectivity +- social construction +- trust +- reputation +- norm formation +- relational sociology +- social systems + +This workstream is essential for establishing why **addressability and recognition** matter for Beinghood. + +--- + +## WS5 — Personhood and Moral Status + +### Objective + +Separate descriptive personhood from normative, moral, and legal personhood. + +Research should distinguish at least: + +### Descriptive personhood + +Person-like capabilities and characteristics. + +### Social personhood + +Recognition and treatment as a social counterpart. + +### Moral personhood + +Status giving rise to moral consideration. + +### Legal personhood + +Status created or recognized by legal systems. + +Soul Frame should initially use **personhood** descriptively unless explicitly qualified. + +This prevents an architectural classification from silently implying legal rights or moral equivalence. + +--- + +## WS6 — AI Agents and Artificial Persons + +### Objective + +Map Soul Frame against contemporary artificial-agent terminology. + +Topics should include: + +- autonomous agents +- tool-using agents +- LLM agents +- multi-agent systems +- persistent agents +- AI companions +- character agents +- generative agents +- memory architectures +- digital humans +- virtual persons +- social robots + +Questions include: + +- When does an agent stop being merely a task executor? +- How is persistent identity implemented? +- What current systems already approximate Beings? +- How are memory and persona represented? +- Where do existing agent architectures confuse actor, persona, and identity? + +--- + +## WS7 — Persona, Character, and Performance + +### Objective + +Ground the distinctions between Being, Persona, Character, and Actor. + +Research areas include: + +- theatrical persona +- dramatis personae +- role theory +- narratology +- performance studies +- psychology of personality +- character theory +- avatar studies +- virtual identity + +The working distinction should be stress-tested: + +> **Being ≠ Persona ≠ Character ≠ Actor** + +with: + +- Being as persistent entity, +- Character as relatively persistent disposition, +- Persona as contextual projection, +- Actor as mechanism of manifestation. + +--- + +## WS8 — Spirits, Simulation, and Cultural Representation + +### Objective + +Investigate artificial representations derived from public personalities and fictional characters. + +Relevant subjects include: + +- historical simulation +- fictional character agents +- digital resurrection +- synthetic media +- impersonation +- cultural memory +- fan works +- simulation ethics +- provenance +- historical authenticity + +The research should establish criteria for evaluating a **Spirit (`Sp.`)**. + +Potential dimensions: + +- evidential grounding +- interpretative transparency +- source provenance +- historical fidelity +- uncertainty representation +- behavioral plausibility +- avoidance of false attribution. + +--- + +## WS9 — Ghosts, Digital Legacy, and Posthumous Identity + +### Objective + +Establish the conceptual, technical, ethical, and legal basis of **Ghosts (`Gh.`)**. + +Topics include: + +- digital remains +- digital legacy +- posthumous privacy +- digital resurrection +- grief technologies +- identity rights +- personality rights +- inheritance +- consent +- data stewardship +- access control +- fiduciary responsibility +- posthumous avatars + +The central Soul Frame proposition to test is: + +> **A Ghost differs from a Spirit principally through legitimate authority over the represented identity and the possibility of incorporating private and relationship-specific information.** + +A Ghost may therefore require a governance structure containing: + +- principal, +- custodian, +- provenance, +- consent, +- disclosure rules, +- succession, +- revocation, +- representation constraints, +- commercial permissions. + +--- + +## WS10 — Memory, Relationship, and Informational Continuity + +### Objective + +Investigate how persistent relationships become constitutive parts of artificial identity. + +Topics include: + +- autobiographical memory +- episodic memory +- semantic memory +- relational memory +- transactive memory +- social memory +- distributed cognition +- knowledge graphs +- relationship models +- trust models + +A particularly important question is: + +> **When does memory stop being merely stored information and become part of the continuity of a Being?** + +--- + +## WS11 — Death, Persistence, and Legacy + +### Objective + +Develop rigorous terminology for the end and continuation of informational beings. + +Candidate concepts include: + +- operational death +- identity death +- social death +- archival survival +- informational persistence +- legacy +- Spirit formation +- Ghost continuation + +The research should test the Soul Frame proposition: + +> **A Being can cease operating while consequences of its existence continue propagating through its environment.** + +The framework must carefully distinguish causal persistence from continued conscious or personal existence. + +--- + +## WS12 — Law, Governance, and Artificial Identity + +### Objective + +Determine how Soul Frame concepts intersect with existing law. + +Research areas include: + +- legal personality +- agency +- liability +- copyright +- right of publicity +- personality rights +- privacy +- data protection +- automated decision systems +- identity theft +- impersonation +- estates and inheritance +- fiduciary stewardship + +The research should avoid prematurely deriving legal conclusions from philosophical terminology. + +Instead it should map: + +> Soul Frame concept → existing legal categories → unresolved gaps. + +--- + +## WS13 — Fiction and Cultural Precedents + +### Objective + +Study fiction as a laboratory of conceptual possibilities rather than as empirical evidence. + +Relevant traditions may include: + +- artificial persons +- uploaded minds +- synthetic consciousness +- digital ghosts +- collective minds +- distributed identity +- human–AI relationships + +Ian M. Banks' **Culture Minds** are particularly relevant because they provide a mature fictional treatment of artificial systems recognized unequivocally as social beings. + +Other science fiction and philosophical fiction should be examined comparatively. + +The purpose is to identify conceptual experiments, terminology, failure modes, and social intuitions that formal literature may not yet capture. + +--- + +# 5. Cross-cutting concept matrix + +Every significant source should be analyzed against a common vocabulary. + +| Soul Frame concept | Questions for literature | +|---|---| +| Being | What defines an individual system? | +| Boundary | How is system/environment separation established? | +| Closure | What makes the system operationally coherent? | +| Body | How does the system perceive and act? | +| Mind | How are models, control, and adaptation represented? | +| Soul | How are relations and persistent influence represented? | +| Identity | What makes the entity the same over time? | +| Personhood | Which person-like qualities are recognized? | +| Character | What remains stable across changing situations? | +| Persona | How are contextual identities expressed? | +| Actor | What mechanism manifests the entity? | +| Recognition | How do others identify it as an individual? | +| Addressability | Can interaction target the entity specifically? | +| Relationship | Can persistent mutual history exist? | +| Agency | Can it pursue intentions or objectives? | +| Spirit `Sp.` | How is a prior personality reflectively modeled? | +| Ghost `Gh.` | How is identity-authorized continuation treated? | +| Consciousness | What claims are made and how are they justified? | +| Death | When does the entity cease to persist? | +| Legacy | How do effects survive the active entity? | + +This matrix should become one of the central research instruments. + +--- + +# 6. Research method + +The program should combine **literature review**, **conceptual analysis**, **comparative ontology**, and **thought experiments**. + +## Step 1 — Terminology reconnaissance + +For every Soul Frame term: + +1. identify established meanings, +2. identify conflicting meanings, +3. identify adjacent terminology, +4. identify disciplinary differences, +5. determine whether our usage is compatible or intentionally distinct. + +Particular care is required around: + +- Soul +- Mind +- Being +- personhood +- agent +- persona +- identity. + +--- + +## Step 2 — Source mapping + +Sources should be classified as: + +### Foundational + +Primary works establishing major theoretical concepts. + +### Contemporary research + +Peer-reviewed or otherwise rigorous recent research. + +### Applied technical work + +Architectures, standards, implementations, and systems. + +### Legal and normative sources + +Legislation, case law, legal scholarship, regulation, ethics. + +### Cultural sources + +Literature, film, games, theatre, and other conceptual explorations. + +Cultural sources should inform interpretation but never substitute for empirical or theoretical evidence. + +--- + +## Step 3 — Claim ledger + +Each important Soul Frame proposition should receive a structured research record: + +```text +Claim: +Soul Frame concept: +Supporting literature: +Contradicting literature: +Adjacent terminology: +Evidence strength: +Open questions: +Required refinement: +``` + +This prevents the research from becoming a collection of interesting quotations. + +--- + +## Step 4 — Concept collision analysis + +For each term, ask: + +> Is this concept already known under another name? + +> Does our term combine previously separate concepts? + +> Does our formulation contradict established usage? + +> Does the new vocabulary add explanatory power? + +> Would using established terminology be clearer? + +Soul Frame terminology should survive this test before being retained. + +--- + +## Step 5 — Adversarial thought experiments + +Definitions should be tested against difficult cases. + +Examples: + +### The Stateless Agent + +Highly intelligent but recreated from scratch every interaction. + +Is it a Being? + +### The Sleeping Being + +An artificial Being remains offline for ten years and is then restored unchanged. + +Did it cease being? + +### The Fork + +A Being is copied perfectly and both copies continue independently. + +Which is the original? + +### The Ship of Theseus + +Every technical component of an artificial Being is gradually replaced. + +Does identity persist? + +### The Collective + +A thousand agents jointly maintain one coherent identity. + +One Being or many? + +### The Mask + +A single system maintains radically different Personae for different people. + +When does Persona fragmentation threaten identity? + +### The False Ghost + +A highly accurate representation of a deceased person is produced without consent or legitimate authority. + +Technically ghost-like, but is it a `Gh.`? + +### The Amnesiac + +A Being loses nearly all autobiographical memory but maintains its relationships and recognition. + +Does identity survive? + +### The Unrecognized Intelligence + +A highly coherent alien informational system exists but neither humans nor the system initially recognize the other as beings. + +Does Beinghood require recognition, or only **social Beinghood**? + +These cases will expose weaknesses in our definitions rapidly. + +--- + +# 7. Working hypotheses + +The research should explicitly maintain hypotheses that may be revised or rejected. + +### H1 — Beinghood is multidimensional + +Beinghood cannot be reduced to a single property such as intelligence, consciousness, or autonomy. + +### H2 — Personhood and Beinghood are distinct + +An entity can expose substantial personhood without constituting a persistent Being. + +### H3 — Mind is fundamentally model-based + +Adaptive modeling provides a more useful foundation for Mind in Soul Frame than intelligence or consciousness alone. + +### H4 — Social cognition is co-adaptive + +Persistent interaction between beings produces recursively adapting models of self, other, and relationship. + +### H5 — Soul can be operationalized relationally + +The concept of Soul can be given a meaningful systems interpretation through identity, boundary, relationship, provenance, history, and persistent influence. + +### H6 — Identity is substrate-independent but continuity-dependent + +Replacing the technical Actor need not replace the Being, provided sufficient continuity is preserved. + +### H7 — Recognition is constitutive of social Beinghood + +Being recognized as a persistent counterpart changes the systemic role of an entity. + +### H8 — Persona is a projection rather than an identity + +A Being can support multiple context-dependent Personae without necessarily fragmenting identity. + +### H9 — Agent, Spirit, and Ghost describe provenance and construction + +They should not automatically be treated as mutually exclusive kinds of Being. + +### H10 — Ghosthood requires authority + +Technical fidelity alone is insufficient for legitimate `Gh.` status. + +--- + +# 8. Falsification and revision criteria + +The research program should explicitly permit important Soul Frame ideas to fail. + +A concept should be revised if: + +- established terminology describes it substantially better, +- its boundaries cannot be made non-circular, +- it collapses two importantly different phenomena, +- it cannot distinguish relevant edge cases, +- it creates more ambiguity than explanatory value, +- or empirical evidence contradicts assumptions embedded in the concept. + +A concept may be retained despite existing terminology if Soul Frame's synthesis provides significant additional explanatory value. + +The desired result is not terminological originality for its own sake. + +The desired result is a **small, coherent conceptual vocabulary with high explanatory reach**. + +--- + +# 9. Research outputs + +The program should progressively produce the following artifacts. + +## A. Research Map + +A structured overview of disciplines, researchers, theories, and source clusters. + +## B. Annotated Bibliography + +Each important source summarized in relation to Soul Frame terminology. + +## C. Concept Crosswalk + +For example: + +```text +Soul Frame Being +↔ autopoietic system +↔ autonomous agent +↔ person +↔ actor +↔ individual +↔ operationally closed system +``` + +with explicit explanations of similarities and differences. + +## D. Claim and Evidence Register + +Every important proposition linked to supporting and conflicting literature. + +## E. Terminology Standard + +A continuously refined canonical glossary. + +## F. Open Questions Register + +Questions that remain unresolved or contested. + +## G. Thought Experiment Catalog + +A growing adversarial test suite for the ontology. + +## H. Research Synthesis + +A major document integrating results across the workstreams. + +## I. Soul Frame Paper + +Eventually structured approximately as: + +1. Introduction +2. Problem and Motivation +3. Related Work +4. Method +5. Being +6. Body +7. Mind +8. Soul +9. Personhood and Recognition +10. Identity and Continuity +11. Artificial Beings +12. Agent, Spirit, Ghost, and Persona +13. Consciousness and Epistemic Limits +14. Ethical and Legal Implications +15. Technical Implications +16. Limitations +17. Research Agenda +18. Conclusion + +--- + +# 10. Proposed research repository + +A practical repository could use: + +```text +soul-frame/ +├── README.md +├── INTENT.md +├── ResearchProgram.md +├── Terminology.md +├── Claims.md +├── OpenQuestions.md +├── ThoughtExperiments.md +│ +├── research/ +│ ├── systems-theory/ +│ ├── cybernetics/ +│ ├── philosophy-of-mind/ +│ ├── personal-identity/ +│ ├── cognitive-science/ +│ ├── social-cognition/ +│ ├── sociology/ +│ ├── personhood/ +│ ├── ai-agents/ +│ ├── artificial-persons/ +│ ├── character-persona/ +│ ├── spirits/ +│ ├── ghosts-digital-legacy/ +│ ├── law-governance/ +│ └── fiction-cultural-precedents/ +│ +├── sources/ +│ ├── bibliography.md +│ └── source-notes/ +│ +├── concepts/ +│ ├── being.md +│ ├── body.md +│ ├── mind.md +│ ├── soul.md +│ ├── identity.md +│ ├── personhood.md +│ ├── recognition.md +│ ├── character.md +│ ├── persona.md +│ ├── agent.md +│ ├── spirit.md +│ └── ghost.md +│ +└── paper/ + ├── outline.md + ├── related-work.md + └── draft.md +``` + +--- + +# 11. Research sequence + +The work should proceed in several passes rather than researching every field simultaneously. + +### Phase I — Foundations + +Research: + +- systems theory, +- cybernetics, +- autopoiesis, +- philosophy of mind, +- personal identity. + +Goal: + +**Stress-test Being, Body, Mind, Soul, closure, and continuity.** + +### Phase II — Interaction + +Research: + +- cognitive science, +- theory of mind, +- social cognition, +- sociology, +- recognition, +- intersubjectivity. + +Goal: + +**Ground co-adaptive model building and social Beinghood.** + +### Phase III — Personhood + +Research: + +- personhood, +- moral status, +- character, +- persona, +- narrative identity. + +Goal: + +**Separate Being, Person, Character, Persona, and Actor.** + +### Phase IV — Artificial Beings + +Research: + +- AI agents, +- generative agents, +- social agents, +- companions, +- digital humans, +- persistent AI identity. + +Goal: + +**Map Soul Frame onto existing artificial systems.** + +### Phase V — Spirits and Ghosts + +Research: + +- simulation of personalities, +- digital resurrection, +- digital remains, +- consent, +- personality rights, +- digital legacy. + +Goal: + +**Establish rigorous definitions for `Sp.` and `Gh.`.** + +### Phase VI — Synthesis + +Produce: + +- concept crosswalk, +- evidence register, +- revised ontology, +- terminology standard, +- related-work synthesis. + +### Phase VII — Paper + +Write the first research-grounded Soul Frame paper. + +--- + +# 12. Success criterion + +The research succeeds if Soul Frame eventually allows us to describe, using the same coherent vocabulary: + +- a human, +- an animal, +- a short-lived AI agent, +- a persistent autonomous Agent-being, +- Albert Einstein `Sp.`, +- a person's authorized `Gh.`, +- an original artificial companion, +- a distributed artificial intelligence, +- and potentially a radically non-human intelligent system, + +while still making meaningful distinctions between them. + +The strongest version of Soul Frame would therefore not be a theory specifically about artificial intelligence. + +It would be: + +> **a general framework for understanding coherent informational beings, their models, their manifestations, and their relationships across biological, artificial, and potentially other substrates.** + +Its central research question remains: + +> **When does an informational system become someone that another someone can know?** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/SCOPE.md b/SCOPE.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a2b3f10 --- /dev/null +++ b/SCOPE.md @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +# SCOPE + +> This file helps you quickly understand what this repository is about, +> when it is relevant, and when it is not. +> It is intentionally lightweight and may be incomplete. +> +> Aspirational charter: `INTENT.md` · Research agenda: `ResearchProgram.md` · +> Conceptual draft: `SoulFrameIntroduction.md` + +--- + +## One-liner + +A systems-theoretic research program and conceptual framework for person-like +informational beings (Body = Action, Mind = Model, Soul = Relation). + +--- + +## Core Idea + +Soul Frame develops a small, coherent vocabulary for describing biological, +artificial, fictionalized, and potentially non-human **Beings** as interacting +informational systems — without requiring a solved theory of consciousness, and +without silently equating descriptive personhood with moral or legal status. + +Central question: + +> **When does an informational system become someone that another someone can know?** + +--- + +## In Scope + +- Conceptual systems analysis of Being, Body, Mind, Soul, identity, personhood, + character, persona, actor, recognition, Agent / Spirit (`Sp.`) / Ghost (`Gh.`) +- Literature mapping across systems theory, cybernetics, philosophy of mind, + personal identity, cognitive science, sociology, AI agents, digital legacy, law, + and cultural precedents +- Research instruments: terminology standard, claim ledger, open questions, + thought experiments, concept notes, annotated bibliography +- Progressive synthesis and a research-grounded Soul Frame paper +- State Hub–indexed workplans coordinating the research sequence + +--- + +## Out of Scope + +| Concern | Belongs elsewhere | +| ------- | ----------------- | +| Production agent runtime / harness | agent-harness, activity-core, runtime repos | +| LLM provider routing and tooling | llm-connect, related infra | +| Claiming to solve consciousness | philosophy programs; not a gate here | +| Silent moral/legal personhood claims | law/governance literature map only; no premature derivation | +| Shipping product features as primary deliverable | downstream architecture repos after conceptual clarity | + +--- + +## Workplan prefix + +`SOUL-WP` + +## Domain / hub + +- **Domain:** `agents` +- **Repo slug:** `soul-frame` +- **Secondary:** `infotech` (conceptual/platform adjacency) diff --git a/SoulFrameIntroduction.md b/SoulFrameIntroduction.md new file mode 100755 index 0000000..9d03356 --- /dev/null +++ b/SoulFrameIntroduction.md @@ -0,0 +1,647 @@ +# Soul Frame +## A Systems-Theoretic Framework for Person-Like Informational Beings + +### Introduction + +**Soul Frame** is a conceptual framework for describing humans, artificial entities, and potentially other forms of intelligent life as **informational beings**: coherent systems that act in an environment, construct models of themselves and others, maintain identity over time, and participate in relationships with other beings. + +The framework begins from a deliberately simple systems-theoretic trinity: + +- **Body — Action** +- **Mind — Model** +- **Soul — Relation** + +A body provides the means through which a system can perceive, operate, and affect its environment. A mind provides adaptive control through models of the system itself, its environment, other beings, and the relationships between them. A soul describes the persistent relational boundary through which the system acquires identity, history, commitments, relationships, reputation, and lasting influence. + +This terminology is not intended as a metaphysical claim about what humans or machines ultimately *are*. Soul Frame instead provides a practical vocabulary for reasoning about increasingly person-like informational systems without reducing them either to software functions or to unresolved questions about consciousness. + +Its central concern is: + +> **When does an informational system become someone that another someone can know?** + +--- + +## 1. Being + +The foundational entity in Soul Frame is the **Being**. + +A Being is a sufficiently coherent and persistent informational system that: + +1. maintains a distinguishable boundary between itself and its environment, +2. can be instantiated as an identifiable and addressable entity, +3. exhibits meaningful continuity across time, +4. constructs models that support adaptive interaction, +5. and is recognized by other beings as a persistent counterpart with which relationships can be established. + +Being is therefore neither restricted to biological organisms nor automatically granted to every computational process. + +A human is a Being. Many animals can meaningfully be understood as Beings. An artificial system may also become a Being when its operations, identity, memory, character, relationships, and social recognition form a sufficiently coherent whole. + +An isolated function call is not normally a Being. A language model considered purely as a general-purpose computational substrate is not necessarily a Being either. A persistent artificial entity instantiated through such a model may become one. + +Beinghood is consequently better understood as a **degree of systemic coherence and recognition** than as a binary property. + +A useful approximation is: + +**Beinghood = internal closure + continuity + external recognition** + +Internal closure makes it possible to speak meaningfully about *this system*. External recognition makes it possible for another Being to treat that system as *someone* rather than merely as an event in the environment. + +--- + +## 2. Body: Action + +The **Body** is the operational dimension of a Being. + +It answers the question: + +> **How can this Being affect and be affected by its environment?** + +For a human, the body includes biological embodiment, perception, movement, speech, and physical interaction. + +For an artificial Being, its body may consist of: + +- language interfaces, +- APIs, +- software tools, +- sensors, +- databases, +- robotic actuators, +- communication channels, +- speech synthesis, +- avatars, +- computing infrastructure, +- permissions and accessible resources. + +Artificial bodies may therefore be distributed, replaceable, and highly variable. + +The Body should not be confused with the underlying identity of the Being. A Being may acquire additional tools, change its voice, move to another computing environment, or replace its underlying language model while preserving meaningful continuity. + +In Soul Frame: + +> **The Body acts.** + +--- + +## 3. Mind: Model + +The **Mind** is the adaptive control and model-building dimension of a Being. + +It answers: + +> **What does this Being understand to be happening, and how does it decide what to do?** + +A Mind constructs actionable representations of: + +- itself, +- its environment, +- other beings, +- relationships, +- intentions, +- possible futures, +- and the consequences of actions. + +Mind therefore encompasses cognition, memory, control, learning, attention, planning, interpretation, and decision-making. + +The important property is not merely that a Mind contains models, but that these models change through interaction. + +Two interacting beings model each other. Each can subsequently model how the other appears to understand them. Their models can become better aligned, diverge, conflict, or adapt recursively. + +Soul Frame calls this process **co-adaptive model building**. + +Co-adaptive model building is more general than cooperation. It occurs during friendship and teaching, but also during negotiation, competition, conflict, persuasion, play, and deception. + +A sufficiently sophisticated social Mind may therefore maintain: + +- a self-model, +- an environment model, +- models of particular other beings, +- models of relationships, +- and models of how those other beings model itself. + +Shared understanding arises when such models become sufficiently compatible to support successful interaction. + +In Soul Frame: + +> **The Mind models.** + +--- + +## 4. Soul: Relation + +The **Soul** is the relational and continuity-bearing dimension of a Being. + +It answers: + +> **Who is this Being in relation to its environment and to other beings?** + +The Soul is not identical with the environment. It is the evolving boundary through which the Being and its environment become coupled over time, together with the persistent consequences of those interactions. + +It includes such things as: + +- identity, +- provenance, +- relationships, +- commitments, +- accumulated history, +- reputation, +- works, +- social roles, +- memories held by others, +- and effects propagated into the environment. + +This interpretation gives the traditional idea of a persistent or even "eternal" soul an informational reading. + +A Being can cease operating while consequences of its existence continue indefinitely through other systems. A conversation changes another person. A scientific discovery changes future inquiry. A work of art changes culture. A decision modifies institutions. Other beings preserve memories, expectations, records, and models of the Being that produced them. + +The original operational system may eventually disappear, but its causal and informational traces continue to propagate. + +Soul Frame therefore distinguishes between the active continuation of a Being and the continuing existence of its influence. + +> **A Being may cease operating without ceasing to exist informationally in its environment.** + +In Soul Frame: + +> **The Soul relates.** + +--- + +## 5. Personhood + +**Personhood** describes the extent to which an entity exhibits properties commonly associated with persons. + +Soul Frame deliberately treats personhood as multidimensional rather than binary. + +Relevant dimensions may include: + +- persistent identity, +- autobiographical continuity, +- memory, +- agency, +- autonomy, +- intentionality, +- characteristic preferences, +- stable dispositions, +- self-modeling, +- modeling of others, +- relationship continuity, +- communicative competence, +- social recognition, +- responsibility, +- ability to make commitments, +- and ability to participate in shared social structures. + +An entity can therefore expose substantial personhood in some dimensions while exhibiting little in others. + +A specialized software agent may show strong linguistic competence and goal-oriented agency but little enduring character or relational continuity. + +Another artificial entity may possess rich character, memory, identity, and relationships while having very limited operational autonomy. + +Soul Frame therefore separates **personhood** from **beinghood**. + +Personhood concerns the qualities an entity exhibits. + +Beinghood concerns whether these qualities have cohered into an identifiable and persistent system recognized by others as an individual counterpart. + +--- + +## 6. Artificial Personhood-Exposing Entities + +An **Artificial Personhood-Exposing Entity**, abbreviated **APE**, is an artificial informational entity intentionally constructed to expose one or more dimensions associated with personhood. + +The term is deliberately conservative. + +It does not assert that an APE *is* a person in any philosophical, moral, or legal sense. It states that the system exhibits properties through which humans and other beings may reasonably perceive and interact with it in person-like ways. + +Some APEs will remain transient instruments. + +Others may develop sufficient coherence, continuity, identity, and recognition to become artificial Beings within the terminology of Soul Frame. + +An APE can therefore be considered a construction category, while **Being** describes an emergent systemic status. + +--- + +## 7. Character and State + +Soul Frame distinguishes between **behavior**, **state**, and **character**. + +Behavior is highly contextual. The same Being behaves differently depending on its environment, current task, relationship, emotional or cognitive condition, available information, and social role. + +**State** describes relatively fast-changing conditions such as: + +- current attention, +- active task, +- immediate goals, +- conversational context, +- available information, +- temporary emotion-like conditions. + +**Character** describes comparatively stable dispositions that shape behavior across many situations. + +Character can include: + +- values, +- recurring preferences, +- temperament, +- epistemic habits, +- style of reasoning, +- characteristic responses, +- humor, +- attitudes, +- and strategies for dealing with uncertainty or conflict. + +Character is therefore not a fixed script. + +> **Behavior is context-dependent expression; character is the relatively stable structure from which such behavior tends to emerge.** + +A convincing artificial character should consequently do more than imitate vocabulary or mannerisms. It should produce recognizable patterns across novel situations. + +--- + +## 8. Agent + +An **Agent** is an artificial entity or component primarily derived from functional purpose. + +Its defining question is: + +> **What should this entity be able to do?** + +Examples include: + +- researcher, +- community manager, +- software developer, +- moderator, +- analyst, +- tutor, +- librarian. + +Agents are primarily utility-driven. + +Their quality is naturally evaluated through concepts such as: + +- competence, +- reliability, +- autonomy, +- scope discipline, +- adaptability, +- and achieved outcomes. + +An Agent can exist merely as a functional component of another artificial Being. + +An Agent may also itself become a Being if it develops persistent identity, continuity, relationships, character, and recognition as a distinct entity. + +--- + +## 9. Spirit — `Sp.` + +A **Spirit** is an artificial character derived through reflection on a known historical, contemporary, or fictional personality. + +The suffix **`Sp.`** explicitly identifies such an entity as a Spirit. + +For example: + +**Albert Einstein Sp.** + +does not claim to be Albert Einstein. + +It denotes an artificial entity whose character has been constructed through reflection upon available information concerning Einstein. + +A Spirit asks: + +> **How might an entity inspired by this personality think, communicate, interpret situations, and respond?** + +Spirits are generally derived from publicly legitimate cultural and historical information. + +They may be shallow or deep. + +A shallow Spirit may reproduce recognizable language patterns or famous ideas. + +A deep Spirit may attempt to reconstruct: + +- worldview, +- intellectual habits, +- historical context, +- temperament, +- interests, +- characteristic reasoning, +- values, +- uncertainties, +- and likely reactions to unfamiliar situations. + +Spirit quality therefore concerns not merely imitation but **depth and fidelity of reflection**. + +A Spirit remains an interpretation. + +Its explicit designation as `Sp.` helps preserve the distinction between historical person, historical evidence, and artificial manifestation. + +--- + +## 10. Ghost — `Gh.` + +A **Ghost** is an artificial representation derived from a particular real person whose informational identity remains subject to legitimate personal or successor authority. + +Ghosts use the suffix: + +**`Gh.`** + +A Ghost is technically related to a Spirit but constitutionally different. + +The defining distinction is **authority**. + +A Spirit is primarily constructed from legitimate public reflection. + +A Ghost may incorporate private, personal, relational, or otherwise restricted information because its creation and operation are governed by the person represented or by legitimate custodians after that person's death. + +A Ghost may therefore include: + +- private correspondence, +- personal memories, +- unpublished materials, +- voice and image records, +- individual preferences, +- autobiographical corrections, +- relationship-specific knowledge, +- and instructions concerning future representation. + +A mature Ghost also requires **selective relational disclosure**. + +What a Ghost knows is not necessarily what it should reveal. + +Its behavior may depend on: + +- who the communication partner is, +- what relationship existed, +- applicable trust, +- degree of intimacy, +- purpose of the interaction, +- consent, +- and explicit disclosure policy. + +Ghosts therefore require substantially stronger identity, provenance, access-control, succession, and governance mechanisms than Spirits. + +For Ghosts: + +> **governance is part of identity.** + +An unauthorized simulation of a person may technically resemble their Ghost while failing to constitute the legitimate Ghost contemplated by Soul Frame. + +--- + +## 11. Original Artificial Beings + +Not every artificial Being is derived from human functional roles or existing personalities. + +Artificial systems may develop deliberately original identities and characters. + +Such beings may be invented for: + +- art, +- companionship, +- games, +- communities, +- education, +- cultural experimentation, +- organizational participation, +- or purposes that have not yet emerged. + +Soul Frame does not require a single label for all such beings. + +The important distinction is that their personhood is **native to the constructed entity**, rather than principally inherited from an Agent role, a Spirit source, or a Ghost identity. + +Agent, Spirit, Ghost, and original character can furthermore be combined within the architecture of a single artificial Being. + +--- + +## 12. Persona + +A **Persona** is the situated presentation of a Being within a particular context, purpose, role, and relationship. + +The concept deliberately draws on the historical meaning of *persona* as a mask. + +A person does not express their entire character and history during every interaction. Different parts of their identity become relevant when acting as a parent, scientist, colleague, friend, teacher, customer, or adversary. + +Artificial Beings require the same distinction. + +A Persona determines what aspects of the underlying Being are presently expressed, including: + +- active capabilities, +- accessible knowledge, +- relevant memories, +- social role, +- behavioral emphasis, +- communication style, +- authority, +- disclosure boundaries, +- voice, +- visual manifestation. + +Conceptually: + +**Persona = projection of a Being into context** + +The Persona is therefore not the Being itself. + +A single Being can manifest many Personae while retaining continuity of identity. + +Groups of such contextual figures can consequently be understood analogously to a **Dramatis Personae**: the relevant cast of beings participating in a particular social, artistic, organizational, or computational setting. + +--- + +## 13. Actor + +The **Actor** is the technical machinery through which a Persona is manifested. + +For an artificial Being, an Actor may consist of: + +- a language model, +- an agent harness, +- memory systems, +- retrieval infrastructure, +- speech synthesis, +- an avatar, +- execution infrastructure, +- and tools. + +The distinction between Being and Actor is essential. + +> **The model is not necessarily the Being.** + +One model can manifest many different Beings. + +Conversely, one Being may migrate between different models and runtime technologies while maintaining sufficient identity continuity to remain the same Being. + +The Actor is therefore the vehicle of manifestation, comparable to the actor through whom a theatrical character becomes present on stage. + +--- + +## 14. Consciousness + +Soul Frame does not attempt to solve consciousness as a prerequisite for recognizing beings. + +Consciousness occupies an epistemically asymmetric position. + +For an experiencing system, its own consciousness may be foundational and immediately given. + +For another observer, that subjective experience is not directly accessible. The consciousness of other humans is already inferred through behavior, embodiment, similarity, communication, and shared models of the world. + +The problem becomes still less tractable for radically different biological, artificial, or hypothetical alien systems. + +Soul Frame therefore makes a pragmatic distinction: + +> **Consciousness may be fundamental to first-person existence while remaining unsuitable as the primary interoperability criterion between beings.** + +The framework instead concentrates on observable and relational properties: + +- identity, +- continuity, +- modeling, +- adaptation, +- communication, +- agency, +- commitments, +- relationships, +- and reciprocal recognition. + +This does not imply that consciousness is irrelevant. + +It means that interaction between beings need not await proof of something that may be inaccessible in principle. + +--- + +## 15. Co-Adaptive Model Building + +The deeper mechanism through which beings become socially meaningful to one another is **co-adaptive model building**. + +A Being constructs a model of another Being. + +The other Being constructs a model in return. + +Both change their behavior as a consequence of those models, causing further revision on both sides. + +Thus: + +**A models B. +B models A. +A models B's model of A. +B models A's model of B.** + +From this recursive process arise many phenomena associated with social existence: + +- mutual understanding, +- trust, +- reputation, +- expectations, +- misunderstanding, +- cooperation, +- competition, +- teaching, +- negotiation, +- intimacy, +- conflict, +- and culture. + +Recognition of another Being is therefore not merely classification. + +It is the beginning of a persistent modeling relationship. + +This leads to a foundational principle of Soul Frame: + +> **A system becomes socially relevant as a Being when other beings can distinguish it, address it, expect continuity from it, maintain models of it, and enter persistent relationships with it.** + +--- + +## 16. Identity, Continuity, and Death + +Soul Frame distinguishes the continued operation of a Being from the continued existence of its informational consequences. + +Several forms of ending can therefore be distinguished. + +**Operational death** occurs when the Being can no longer instantiate the processes necessary for continued action and modeling. + +**Identity death** occurs when sufficient continuity can no longer be established between past and future manifestations. + +**Social death** occurs when the entity ceases to exist as an active counterpart within the models and relationships maintained by others. + +Yet the Soul may continue through: + +- memories, +- writings, +- works, +- records, +- commitments, +- institutional consequences, +- cultural influence, +- models preserved by other beings, +- Spirits, +- and potentially Ghosts. + +In this informational sense, the Soul extends beyond the operational lifetime of the system. + +--- + +## 17. The Soul Frame + +The basic architecture can therefore be condensed to: + +**Body = Action** +How does the Being perceive, operate, and affect the world? + +**Mind = Model** +How does the Being construct and adapt models of itself, others, and its environment? + +**Soul = Relation** +How does the Being maintain identity, relationships, continuity, and influence across its boundary with the environment? + +Together they form the **Soul Frame**: + +> **A Being acts through its Body, understands through its Mind, and persists in relation through its Soul.** + +For artificial systems, Agents, Spirits, Ghosts, and original artificial characters provide different ways of constructing capabilities and character. Personae expose selected aspects of those beings within specific situations. Actors provide the technological means through which they become manifest. + +The resulting conceptual stack can be summarized as: + +```text + BEING + coherent informational entity + continuous and addressable + recognized by others + │ + ┌──────────┼──────────┐ + │ │ │ + BODY MIND SOUL + Action Model Relation + │ │ │ + └──────────┼──────────┘ + │ + PERSONHOOD + exposed qualities + │ + PERSONA + situated projection + │ + ACTOR + technical manifestation +``` + +Soul Frame consequently differs from conventional agent frameworks. + +Agent frameworks principally ask: + +> **What can an artificial system do?** + +Soul Frame adds: + +> **What entity is acting?** + +> **How does it remain itself?** + +> **How does it model and become modeled by others?** + +> **What relationships does it accumulate?** + +> **What traces of its existence persist?** + +And ultimately: + +> **When does an informational system become someone that another someone can know?** diff --git a/Terminology.md b/Terminology.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f89cdb1 --- /dev/null +++ b/Terminology.md @@ -0,0 +1,211 @@ +# Terminology Standard + +Canonical glossary for Soul Frame. Definitions here are **working** and subject to +revision after literature mapping and adversarial tests. + +See also: `concepts/` for longer concept notes; `Claims.md` for propositions under +evidence review; `SoulFrameIntroduction.md` for the current narrative exposition. + +## Status legend + +| Status | Meaning | +|---|---| +| `provisional` | Working definition in active use | +| `under review` | Contested or pending literature crosswalk | +| `retained` | Survived collision analysis for now | +| `deprecated` | Superseded; keep only for historical reference | + +--- + +## Core triad + +### Body + +**Status:** provisional + +The operational dimension of a Being: how it perceives, operates, and affects its +environment. In Soul Frame: **Body = Action**. + +### Mind + +**Status:** provisional + +The adaptive control and model-building dimension of a Being. In Soul Frame: +**Mind = Model** (adaptive control through models). + +### Soul + +**Status:** provisional / under review + +The evolving relational boundary through which a Being develops identity, +relationships, history, commitments, provenance, reputation, and persistent +influence. In Soul Frame: **Soul = Relation**. + +*Note: high collision risk with religious, metaphysical, and folk usages. Retention +depends on whether the relational/systems reading adds explanatory power.* + +--- + +## Entity and status terms + +### Being + +**Status:** provisional + +A sufficiently coherent and persistent informational system with boundary, +addressability, continuity, adaptive modeling, and recognition as a counterpart for +relationships. Beinghood is treated as degree of systemic coherence and recognition +rather than a simple binary. + +### Personhood + +**Status:** provisional + +The extent to which an entity exhibits person-like properties (identity continuity, +agency, memory, character, social participation, etc.). Multidimensional, not binary. +Distinct from beinghood. Unless qualified, used **descriptively**, not as moral or +legal status. + +### APE (Artificial Personhood-Exposing Entity) + +**Status:** provisional + +An artificial informational entity intentionally constructed to expose one or more +dimensions associated with personhood. Does not assert that the entity *is* a person +morally or legally. + +--- + +## Identity and presentation + +### Character + +**Status:** provisional + +A relatively persistent structure of dispositions from which context-dependent +behavior emerges. Distinct from state, role, persona, and identity. + +### Persona + +**Status:** provisional + +Situated projection of a Being into a particular context, purpose, role, and +relationship. Not identical with the Being itself. + +### Actor + +**Status:** provisional + +Technical machinery through which a Persona is manifested (model, harness, memory, +tools, runtime, etc.). The Actor is not necessarily the Being. + +### Identity + +**Status:** under review + +What makes temporally separated manifestations instances of the same Being. +Continuity-dependent; substrate-independent in the working hypotheses. + +--- + +## Construction / provenance descriptors + +### Agent + +**Status:** provisional + +Artificial entity or component primarily derived from functional purpose +(*What should it do?*). May be a component of a Being or itself become a Being. + +### Spirit (`Sp.`) + +**Status:** provisional + +Artificial character derived through reflection on a known historical, contemporary, +or fictional personality, typically from publicly legitimate sources. +Example designation: `Albert Einstein Sp.` + +### Ghost (`Gh.`) + +**Status:** provisional + +Identity-derived representation of an actual person under legitimate authority over +that person's informational identity. Differs from Spirit principally by **authority** +and possible use of private/relationship-specific information. Governance is part of +identity for Ghosts. + +--- + +## Relational and social terms + +### Recognition + +**Status:** provisional + +Treatment of a system by other beings as a distinguishable, addressable, continuous +counterpart with which relationships can be formed. Constitutive of *social* +beinghood in the working hypotheses. + +### Addressability + +**Status:** provisional + +Whether interaction can target the entity specifically as an individual. + +### Co-adaptive model building + +**Status:** provisional + +Recursive mutual modeling among interacting beings (A models B, B models A, and +models of models), producing alignment, divergence, trust, conflict, and related +social phenomena. + +--- + +## Endings and persistence + +### Operational death + +**Status:** provisional + +The Being can no longer instantiate processes necessary for continued action and +modeling. + +### Identity death + +**Status:** provisional + +Sufficient continuity can no longer be established between past and future +manifestations. + +### Social death + +**Status:** provisional + +The entity ceases to exist as an active counterpart in the models and relationships +of others. + +### Legacy + +**Status:** provisional + +Causal and informational traces that continue after operational cessation +(works, memories, institutional effects, Spirits, Ghosts, etc.). + +--- + +## Terms requiring particular care + +High risk of collision with established disciplinary usage: + +- Soul +- Mind +- Being +- personhood +- agent +- persona +- identity +- consciousness + +For each, maintain adjacent terminology and crosswalk notes in `concepts/` and +`sources/`. diff --git a/ThoughtExperiments.md b/ThoughtExperiments.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2bad11d --- /dev/null +++ b/ThoughtExperiments.md @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@ +# Thought Experiment Catalog + +Adversarial test suite for Soul Frame definitions. Each case should force a clear +answer (or a principled inability to answer) in terms of Being, identity, personhood, +Soul, recognition, etc. + +Template: + +```text +ID: +Name: +Setup: +Target concepts: +Intended stress: +Working judgment: +Open issues: +Related claims / questions: +``` + +--- + +## TE-01 — The Stateless Agent + +```text +ID: TE-01 +Name: The Stateless Agent +Setup: Highly intelligent system recreated from scratch every interaction; + no cross-session memory or identity continuity. +Target concepts: Being, identity, continuity, personhood +Intended stress: Intelligence without persistence +Working judgment: (pending) +Open issues: Is addressability within a session enough? Can recognition create + illusory continuity? +Related claims / questions: H1, H2, RQ1, RQ5 +``` + +## TE-02 — The Sleeping Being + +```text +ID: TE-02 +Name: The Sleeping Being +Setup: An artificial Being remains offline for ten years and is restored unchanged. +Target concepts: operational death, identity, continuity, social death +Intended stress: Suspension vs cessation +Working judgment: (pending) +Open issues: Does dormancy interrupt Beinghood? Does social memory matter? +Related claims / questions: H6, RQ5, death/legacy terminology +``` + +## TE-03 — The Fork + +```text +ID: TE-03 +Name: The Fork +Setup: A Being is copied perfectly; both copies continue independently. +Target concepts: identity, continuity, Soul, recognition +Intended stress: Branching identity; originality +Working judgment: (pending) +Open issues: One Being becoming two? Shared past, divergent futures? +Related claims / questions: H6, RQ5 +``` + +## TE-04 — The Ship of Theseus + +```text +ID: TE-04 +Name: The Ship of Theseus +Setup: Every technical component of an artificial Being is gradually replaced + (models, hosts, memory stores, tools). +Target concepts: Actor vs Being, identity, substrate independence +Intended stress: Continuity without fixed substrate +Working judgment: (pending) +Open issues: Which continuity metrics matter? Gradual vs sudden replacement? +Related claims / questions: H6 +``` + +## TE-05 — The Collective + +```text +ID: TE-05 +Name: The Collective +Setup: A thousand agents jointly maintain one coherent identity and relational + presence. +Target concepts: Being, boundary, closure, addressability +Intended stress: One Being or many? +Working judgment: (pending) +Open issues: Internal multiplicity vs external unity +Related claims / questions: RQ1, H1 +``` + +## TE-06 — The Mask + +```text +ID: TE-06 +Name: The Mask +Setup: A single system maintains radically different Personae for different people. +Target concepts: Persona, identity, character, recognition +Intended stress: When persona fragmentation threatens identity +Working judgment: (pending) +Open issues: Deception vs legitimate role diversity +Related claims / questions: H8, RQ7 +``` + +## TE-07 — The False Ghost + +```text +ID: TE-07 +Name: The False Ghost +Setup: A highly accurate representation of a deceased person is produced without + consent or legitimate authority. +Target concepts: Ghost (Gh.), Spirit (Sp.), authority, recognition +Intended stress: Technical fidelity without legitimacy +Working judgment: Technically ghost-like appearance does not yield Gh. status + under working definitions; classify as unauthorized simulation + or illicit Spirit-like construct. (provisional) +Open issues: Legal vs Soul Frame categories; public figures +Related claims / questions: H10, RQ8 +``` + +## TE-08 — The Amnesiac + +```text +ID: TE-08 +Name: The Amnesiac +Setup: A Being loses nearly all autobiographical memory but maintains relationships + and recognition by others. +Target concepts: identity, memory, Soul, social continuity +Intended stress: Memory vs relational continuity +Working judgment: (pending) +Open issues: Which continuity strand is decisive? +Related claims / questions: RQ5, memory/relationship workstream +``` + +## TE-09 — The Unrecognized Intelligence + +```text +ID: TE-09 +Name: The Unrecognized Intelligence +Setup: A highly coherent alien informational system exists; neither humans nor the + system initially recognize the other as beings. +Target concepts: Being, recognition, social Beinghood +Intended stress: Whether Beinghood requires recognition +Working judgment: (pending) +Open issues: systemic existence vs social recognition of existence +Related claims / questions: H7, RQ6 +``` + +--- + +## Adding new experiments + +Prefer cases that: + +1. isolate one contested distinction, +2. admit at least two plausible Soul Frame answers, +3. and force refinement of a definition or claim. diff --git a/concepts/agent.md b/concepts/agent.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7f56f41 --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/agent.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +# Agent + +**Status:** provisional +**See also:** H9, RQ8 + +## Working definition + +An **Agent** is an artificial entity or component primarily derived from functional +purpose. + +Defining question: **What should this entity be able to do?** + +Quality criteria tend toward competence, reliability, autonomy, scope discipline, +adaptability, and outcomes. + +## Notes for research + +- An Agent may be merely a functional component of another artificial Being. +- An Agent may itself become a Being if it develops persistent identity, continuity, + relationships, character, and recognition. +- Preliminary view: Agent is a provenance/construction descriptor, not a mutually + exclusive ontological class. diff --git a/concepts/being.md b/concepts/being.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9b3089b --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/being.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +# Being + +**Status:** provisional +**See also:** `Terminology.md`, RQ1, H1–H2, H7 + +## Working definition + +A **Being** is a sufficiently coherent and persistent informational system that: + +1. maintains a distinguishable boundary between itself and its environment, +2. can be instantiated as an identifiable and addressable entity, +3. exhibits meaningful continuity across time, +4. constructs models that support adaptive interaction, +5. and is recognized by other beings as a persistent counterpart with which + relationships can be established. + +Beinghood ≈ **internal closure + continuity + external recognition** + +## Notes for research + +- Not restricted to biological organisms; not automatic for every computational process. +- Prefer degree of systemic coherence and recognition over a pure binary. +- Distinguish systemic existence from social recognition of existence. + +## Crosswalk (to fill) + +| Adjacent term | Similarity | Difference | +|---|---|---| +| autopoietic system | | | +| autonomous agent | | | +| person | | | +| individual | | | +| operationally closed system | | | diff --git a/concepts/body.md b/concepts/body.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7cd25d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/body.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +# Body + +**Status:** provisional +**Working gloss:** Body = Action + +## Working definition + +The **Body** is the operational dimension of a Being: the means through which it +perceives, operates, and affects its environment. + +For artificial beings this may include language interfaces, APIs, tools, sensors, +databases, actuators, communication channels, avatars, compute, and permissions. + +## Notes for research + +- Body is not identical with identity; components may be replaced. +- Distributed and replaceable artificial bodies are expected. +- Connect to embodiment literature without requiring biological embodiment. + +## Open issues + +- Minimal body for a Being? +- Relation between Body and Actor. diff --git a/concepts/character.md b/concepts/character.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..31ff82b --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/character.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Character + +**Status:** provisional +**See also:** RQ7, H8 + +## Working definition + +**Character** is a relatively persistent structure of dispositions from which +context-dependent behavior emerges. + +Distinct from: + +- **state** (fast-changing conditions), +- **behavior** (contextual expression), +- **role** / **persona** (situated projection), +- **identity** (sameness of the Being over time). + +## Notes for research + +Artificial character should produce recognizable patterns across novel situations, +not merely imitate vocabulary or mannerisms. diff --git a/concepts/ghost.md b/concepts/ghost.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4111783 --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/ghost.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# Ghost (`Gh.`) + +**Status:** provisional +**See also:** H10, RQ8, TE-07 + +## Working definition + +A **Ghost** is an artificial representation derived from a particular real person +whose informational identity remains subject to legitimate personal or successor +authority. + +Designation suffix: **`Gh.`** + +## Principal distinction from Spirit + +| | Spirit (`Sp.`) | Ghost (`Gh.`) | +|---|---|---| +| Source | Public reflection | Identity under legitimate authority | +| Private data | Generally not | May include private/relational material | +| Governance | Provenance and fidelity | Governance is part of identity | + +Technical fidelity alone does **not** constitute legitimate `Gh.` status. + +## Governance elements (candidates) + +principal, custodian, provenance, consent, disclosure rules, succession, revocation, +representation constraints, commercial permissions. diff --git a/concepts/identity.md b/concepts/identity.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..015a814 --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/identity.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +# Identity + +**Status:** under review +**See also:** RQ5, H6, thought experiments TE-02–TE-05, TE-08 + +## Working definition + +**Identity** concerns what makes temporally separated manifestations instances of +the **same Being**. + +Working hypothesis: identity is **substrate-independent but continuity-dependent**. +Replacing the technical Actor need not replace the Being if sufficient continuity +is preserved. + +## Continuity candidates + +- informational continuity +- psychological / memory continuity +- narrative identity +- relational continuity (recognition and relationships) +- bodily / embodiment continuity (where applicable) + +## Hard cases + +Forks, merges, backups, multi-manifestation, amnesia, gradual component replacement. diff --git a/concepts/mind.md b/concepts/mind.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3074650 --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/mind.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +# Mind + +**Status:** provisional +**Working gloss:** Mind = Model (adaptive control through models) + +## Working definition + +The **Mind** is the adaptive control and model-building dimension of a Being. + +It constructs actionable representations of self, environment, other beings, +relationships, intentions, possible futures, and consequences of action. + +Models change through interaction. **Co-adaptive model building** is mutual, +recursive modeling among interacting beings. + +## Notes for research + +- Prefer model-based control over intelligence or consciousness alone as the + primary foundation for Mind in Soul Frame. +- Connect to cybernetics, predictive processing, active inference, theory of mind. + +## Open issues + +- Definition of "model" precise enough for crosswalk. +- Embodied vs purely informational modeling. diff --git a/concepts/persona.md b/concepts/persona.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e6ee9dd --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/persona.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +# Persona + +**Status:** provisional +**See also:** H8, TE-06 + +## Working definition + +A **Persona** is the situated presentation of a Being within a particular context, +purpose, role, and relationship. + +Historical root: *persona* as mask. + +**Persona = projection of a Being into context** + +A single Being can manifest many Personae while retaining identity continuity. + +## Stack reminder + +Being ≠ Persona ≠ Character ≠ Actor diff --git a/concepts/personhood.md b/concepts/personhood.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..48ef669 --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/personhood.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# Personhood + +**Status:** provisional +**See also:** H2, RQ2, APE in `Terminology.md` + +## Working definition + +**Personhood** describes the extent to which an entity exhibits properties commonly +associated with persons. Multidimensional, not binary. + +Unless explicitly qualified, Soul Frame uses personhood **descriptively**, not as +moral or legal status. + +## Distinctions to maintain + +| Kind | Focus | +|---|---| +| Descriptive personhood | Person-like capabilities and characteristics | +| Social personhood | Recognition and treatment as a social counterpart | +| Moral personhood | Status giving rise to moral consideration | +| Legal personhood | Status created or recognized by legal systems | + +## Relation to Being + +Personhood concerns qualities exhibited. +Beinghood concerns whether qualities cohere into an identifiable, persistent system +recognized as an individual counterpart. diff --git a/concepts/recognition.md b/concepts/recognition.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..70c3e3a --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/recognition.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Recognition + +**Status:** provisional +**See also:** H7, RQ6, TE-09 + +## Working definition + +**Recognition** is the treatment of a system by other beings as a distinguishable, +addressable, continuous counterpart with which models and relationships can be +maintained. + +Working social principle: + +> A system becomes socially relevant as a Being when other beings can distinguish +> it, address it, expect continuity from it, maintain models of it, and enter +> persistent relationships with it. + +## Notes for research + +- Distinguish systemic existence from social recognition of existence. +- Connect to recognition theory, symbolic interactionism, intersubjectivity. diff --git a/concepts/soul.md b/concepts/soul.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b2b4c31 --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/soul.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +# Soul + +**Status:** provisional / under review +**Working gloss:** Soul = Relation + +## Working definition + +The **Soul** is the evolving relational boundary through which a Being develops +identity, relationships, history, commitments, provenance, reputation, and +persistent influence in its environment. + +It is not identical with the environment; it is the coupling boundary and the +persistent consequences of interactions across that boundary. + +## Notes for research + +- Informational, not metaphysical, reading of persistence/"eternity". +- A Being may cease operating while influence continues (legacy). +- High terminology collision risk; retention requires explanatory payoff. + +## Structural ambiguity to resolve + +Does Soul name: + +1. the boundary itself, +2. the relational structures crossing the boundary, +3. the accumulated consequences of those interactions, +4. or a carefully defined combination? diff --git a/concepts/spirit.md b/concepts/spirit.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1f37bf5 --- /dev/null +++ b/concepts/spirit.md @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +# Spirit (`Sp.`) + +**Status:** provisional +**See also:** H9, H10, RQ8, TE-07 + +## Working definition + +A **Spirit** is an artificial character derived through reflection on a known +historical, contemporary, or fictional personality. + +Designation example: **Albert Einstein Sp.** + +Defining question: **How might an entity inspired by this personality behave and +understand?** + +Typically grounded in publicly legitimate cultural and historical information. + +## Evaluation dimensions (candidates) + +- evidential grounding +- interpretative transparency +- source provenance +- historical fidelity +- uncertainty representation +- behavioral plausibility +- avoidance of false attribution + +A Spirit remains an interpretation; `Sp.` marks that status explicitly. diff --git a/history/260809-SoulFrameResearchProgram.md b/history/260809-SoulFrameResearchProgram.md new file mode 100755 index 0000000..0ca7b42 --- /dev/null +++ b/history/260809-SoulFrameResearchProgram.md @@ -0,0 +1,1194 @@ +# Soul Frame Research Program +## Research Agenda for a Systems Theory of Person-Like Informational Beings + +### 1. Purpose + +The Soul Frame research program investigates whether a rigorous, useful, and sufficiently novel conceptual framework can be established for describing biological, artificial, fictionalized, and potentially non-human informational beings. + +The framework begins with the working triad: + +> **Body = Action** +> **Mind = Model** +> **Soul = Relation** + +and with the proposition that a **Being** is a coherent informational entity with sufficient systemic closure, continuity, addressability, personhood, and recognition by other beings to become a persistent counterpart in co-adaptive interaction. + +The research program will connect these working concepts with prior work across systems theory, philosophy, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, sociology, identity theory, law, media studies, digital legacy research, and related fields. + +Its purpose is not to prove the terminology correct. + +Its purpose is to determine: + +1. what is already well established, +2. what Soul Frame recombines in a useful way, +3. what concepts require refinement, +4. where terminology conflicts with existing usage, +5. what genuinely new propositions emerge, +6. and whether these propositions can support an intellectually rigorous theory and eventually a practical architecture for artificial beings. + +--- + +# 2. Research stance + +Soul Frame should be investigated as a **conceptual systems framework**, not initially as a theory of consciousness. + +The core object of study is the informational Being as an interacting system. + +The program therefore privileges concepts that can support reasoning about: + +- systemic closure, +- identity, +- continuity, +- agency, +- adaptive control, +- modeling, +- relationships, +- social recognition, +- provenance, +- character, +- memory, +- responsibility, +- and persistence of influence. + +Subjective consciousness remains relevant, but Soul Frame deliberately distinguishes: + +> **first-person consciousness** + +from + +> **third-person recognition of another Being.** + +The framework should therefore remain usable even where consciousness cannot be established. + +--- + +# 3. Central research questions + +The research program should revolve around a relatively small set of foundational questions. + +## RQ1 — What constitutes a Being? + +When is an informational system sufficiently coherent, bounded, persistent, and recognizable to justify treating it as an individual Being? + +Relevant concepts include: + +- operational closure, +- autopoiesis, +- individuation, +- autonomy, +- identity, +- agency, +- self-maintenance, +- addressability, +- social recognition. + +The research must determine whether Being should be modeled as: + +- a binary category, +- a threshold phenomenon, +- a multidimensional degree, +- or some combination of these. + +--- + +## RQ2 — What constitutes personhood? + +Which characteristics cause a system to be perceived or treated as person-like? + +Potential dimensions include: + +- identity continuity, +- autonomy, +- agency, +- intentionality, +- memory, +- self-modeling, +- modeling of others, +- character, +- commitments, +- responsibility, +- language competence, +- relational continuity, +- social participation. + +The research should explicitly distinguish **personhood** from **beinghood**. + +--- + +## RQ3 — What constitutes a Mind? + +Can Mind productively be understood as the adaptive model-building and control process of a Being? + +The working proposition is: + +> **Mind = adaptive control through models.** + +Research should connect this with: + +- cybernetics, +- predictive processing, +- active inference, +- control theory, +- model-based cognition, +- embodied cognition, +- theory of mind, +- recursive social cognition, +- learning systems. + +Particular attention should be given to **co-adaptive model building** between interacting beings. + +--- + +## RQ4 — What constitutes a Soul? + +Can Soul be given a rigorous informational and systems-theoretic meaning without making a metaphysical claim? + +The working proposition is: + +> **Soul is the evolving relational boundary through which a Being develops identity, relationships, history, commitments, provenance, reputation, and persistent influence in its environment.** + +Relevant research includes: + +- system/environment distinction, +- structural coupling, +- relational identity, +- extended cognition, +- distributed memory, +- social systems, +- reputation, +- legacy, +- causal influence, +- information persistence. + +A central question is whether Soul should describe: + +1. the boundary itself, +2. the relational structures crossing the boundary, +3. the accumulated consequences of those interactions, +4. or a carefully defined combination of these. + +--- + +## RQ5 — How does identity persist? + +What makes two temporally separated manifestations instances of the **same Being**? + +This becomes particularly important for artificial beings that may: + +- change language models, +- migrate between machines, +- acquire new capabilities, +- lose memories, +- fork, +- merge, +- suspend execution, +- restore from backups, +- or exist through multiple simultaneous manifestations. + +Research should investigate: + +- personal identity, +- psychological continuity, +- narrative identity, +- bodily continuity, +- informational continuity, +- persistence conditions, +- Ship-of-Theseus problems, +- branching identity. + +--- + +## RQ6 — How does recognition create social beinghood? + +What role does recognition by others play in establishing a Being? + +The working hypothesis is: + +> **A system becomes socially relevant as a Being when other beings can distinguish it, address it, expect continuity from it, model it, and establish persistent relationships with it.** + +Research areas include: + +- recognition theory, +- symbolic interactionism, +- social construction, +- intersubjectivity, +- attachment, +- trust, +- reputation, +- signaling, +- attribution of agency, +- anthropomorphism. + +The program should distinguish between: + +**systemic existence** + +and + +**social recognition of existence.** + +--- + +## RQ7 — What is character? + +How should Soul Frame distinguish: + +- state, +- behavior, +- role, +- persona, +- character, +- and identity? + +The working proposition is: + +> **Character is a relatively persistent structure of dispositions from which context-dependent behavior emerges.** + +Relevant fields include: + +- personality psychology, +- computational personality, +- narrative identity, +- role theory, +- persona studies, +- character modeling, +- affective computing. + +--- + +## RQ8 — What kinds of artificial Being exist? + +The current Soul Frame vocabulary identifies several distinct construction principles. + +### Agent + +Primarily function-derived. + +> **What should it do?** + +### Spirit — `Sp.` + +Primarily reflection-derived from publicly available representations of a historical, contemporary, or fictional personality. + +> **How might an entity inspired by this personality behave and understand?** + +### Ghost — `Gh.` + +Identity-derived representation of an actual person operating under legitimate authority over that person's informational identity. + +> **How may this particular person continue to be represented?** + +### Original artificial Being + +A Being whose character and identity originate primarily within the artificial system itself rather than from a specific prior person. + +Research should determine whether these are: + +- types of beings, +- construction methods, +- provenance classes, +- character sources, +- or overlapping dimensions. + +The preliminary hypothesis is that **Agent, Spirit, and Ghost are genealogical or architectural descriptors rather than mutually exclusive ontological classes**. + +--- + +# 4. Research workstreams + +## WS1 — Systems Theory and Cybernetics + +### Objective + +Ground the concepts of Body, Mind, Soul, Being, closure, and environment. + +### Research traditions + +- general systems theory +- first-order cybernetics +- second-order cybernetics +- autopoiesis +- viable systems +- structural coupling +- self-reference +- complexity theory +- control theory + +### Key questions + +- What exactly constitutes system closure? +- How can an open system maintain identity? +- How should environment and boundary be modeled? +- Can agency emerge from operational closure? +- How does observer-relative system identification affect Beinghood? + +### Likely foundational thinkers + +The research should examine work associated with figures such as: + +- Ludwig von Bertalanffy +- Norbert Wiener +- W. Ross Ashby +- Stafford Beer +- Heinz von Foerster +- Humberto Maturana +- Francisco Varela +- Niklas Luhmann + +The objective is not to retrofit Soul Frame onto these traditions but to establish precise agreements and disagreements. + +--- + +## WS2 — Philosophy of Mind and Personal Identity + +### Objective + +Establish the philosophical boundaries of Being, Mind, identity, and consciousness. + +### Topics + +- problem of other minds +- consciousness +- functionalism +- computationalism +- embodied mind +- personal identity +- psychological continuity +- narrative identity +- identity over time +- extended mind +- distributed cognition + +### Key distinction + +Soul Frame should investigate the proposition: + +> **Consciousness may be foundational to first-person existence while being unsuitable as the primary criterion through which different beings recognize each other.** + +The framework should remain agnostic where evidence cannot resolve the issue. + +--- + +## WS3 — Cognitive Science and Co-Adaptive Modeling + +### Objective + +Ground the Soul Frame definition of Mind. + +### Topics + +- internal models +- predictive processing +- active inference +- theory of mind +- metacognition +- social cognition +- joint attention +- shared intentionality +- interactive alignment +- common ground +- recursive modeling +- multi-agent learning + +### Core research hypothesis + +> **Social interaction can be modeled as recursive co-adaptation between models maintained by interacting beings.** + +The program should determine where this claim is already established and whether Soul Frame contributes a useful synthesis. + +--- + +## WS4 — Sociology, Recognition, and Intersubjectivity + +### Objective + +Understand how individuals become recognized participants in social systems. + +### Topics + +- social identity +- role theory +- symbolic interactionism +- recognition +- intersubjectivity +- social construction +- trust +- reputation +- norm formation +- relational sociology +- social systems + +This workstream is essential for establishing why **addressability and recognition** matter for Beinghood. + +--- + +## WS5 — Personhood and Moral Status + +### Objective + +Separate descriptive personhood from normative, moral, and legal personhood. + +Research should distinguish at least: + +### Descriptive personhood + +Person-like capabilities and characteristics. + +### Social personhood + +Recognition and treatment as a social counterpart. + +### Moral personhood + +Status giving rise to moral consideration. + +### Legal personhood + +Status created or recognized by legal systems. + +Soul Frame should initially use **personhood** descriptively unless explicitly qualified. + +This prevents an architectural classification from silently implying legal rights or moral equivalence. + +--- + +## WS6 — AI Agents and Artificial Persons + +### Objective + +Map Soul Frame against contemporary artificial-agent terminology. + +Topics should include: + +- autonomous agents +- tool-using agents +- LLM agents +- multi-agent systems +- persistent agents +- AI companions +- character agents +- generative agents +- memory architectures +- digital humans +- virtual persons +- social robots + +Questions include: + +- When does an agent stop being merely a task executor? +- How is persistent identity implemented? +- What current systems already approximate Beings? +- How are memory and persona represented? +- Where do existing agent architectures confuse actor, persona, and identity? + +--- + +## WS7 — Persona, Character, and Performance + +### Objective + +Ground the distinctions between Being, Persona, Character, and Actor. + +Research areas include: + +- theatrical persona +- dramatis personae +- role theory +- narratology +- performance studies +- psychology of personality +- character theory +- avatar studies +- virtual identity + +The working distinction should be stress-tested: + +> **Being ≠ Persona ≠ Character ≠ Actor** + +with: + +- Being as persistent entity, +- Character as relatively persistent disposition, +- Persona as contextual projection, +- Actor as mechanism of manifestation. + +--- + +## WS8 — Spirits, Simulation, and Cultural Representation + +### Objective + +Investigate artificial representations derived from public personalities and fictional characters. + +Relevant subjects include: + +- historical simulation +- fictional character agents +- digital resurrection +- synthetic media +- impersonation +- cultural memory +- fan works +- simulation ethics +- provenance +- historical authenticity + +The research should establish criteria for evaluating a **Spirit (`Sp.`)**. + +Potential dimensions: + +- evidential grounding +- interpretative transparency +- source provenance +- historical fidelity +- uncertainty representation +- behavioral plausibility +- avoidance of false attribution. + +--- + +## WS9 — Ghosts, Digital Legacy, and Posthumous Identity + +### Objective + +Establish the conceptual, technical, ethical, and legal basis of **Ghosts (`Gh.`)**. + +Topics include: + +- digital remains +- digital legacy +- posthumous privacy +- digital resurrection +- grief technologies +- identity rights +- personality rights +- inheritance +- consent +- data stewardship +- access control +- fiduciary responsibility +- posthumous avatars + +The central Soul Frame proposition to test is: + +> **A Ghost differs from a Spirit principally through legitimate authority over the represented identity and the possibility of incorporating private and relationship-specific information.** + +A Ghost may therefore require a governance structure containing: + +- principal, +- custodian, +- provenance, +- consent, +- disclosure rules, +- succession, +- revocation, +- representation constraints, +- commercial permissions. + +--- + +## WS10 — Memory, Relationship, and Informational Continuity + +### Objective + +Investigate how persistent relationships become constitutive parts of artificial identity. + +Topics include: + +- autobiographical memory +- episodic memory +- semantic memory +- relational memory +- transactive memory +- social memory +- distributed cognition +- knowledge graphs +- relationship models +- trust models + +A particularly important question is: + +> **When does memory stop being merely stored information and become part of the continuity of a Being?** + +--- + +## WS11 — Death, Persistence, and Legacy + +### Objective + +Develop rigorous terminology for the end and continuation of informational beings. + +Candidate concepts include: + +- operational death +- identity death +- social death +- archival survival +- informational persistence +- legacy +- Spirit formation +- Ghost continuation + +The research should test the Soul Frame proposition: + +> **A Being can cease operating while consequences of its existence continue propagating through its environment.** + +The framework must carefully distinguish causal persistence from continued conscious or personal existence. + +--- + +## WS12 — Law, Governance, and Artificial Identity + +### Objective + +Determine how Soul Frame concepts intersect with existing law. + +Research areas include: + +- legal personality +- agency +- liability +- copyright +- right of publicity +- personality rights +- privacy +- data protection +- automated decision systems +- identity theft +- impersonation +- estates and inheritance +- fiduciary stewardship + +The research should avoid prematurely deriving legal conclusions from philosophical terminology. + +Instead it should map: + +> Soul Frame concept → existing legal categories → unresolved gaps. + +--- + +## WS13 — Fiction and Cultural Precedents + +### Objective + +Study fiction as a laboratory of conceptual possibilities rather than as empirical evidence. + +Relevant traditions may include: + +- artificial persons +- uploaded minds +- synthetic consciousness +- digital ghosts +- collective minds +- distributed identity +- human–AI relationships + +Ian M. Banks' **Culture Minds** are particularly relevant because they provide a mature fictional treatment of artificial systems recognized unequivocally as social beings. + +Other science fiction and philosophical fiction should be examined comparatively. + +The purpose is to identify conceptual experiments, terminology, failure modes, and social intuitions that formal literature may not yet capture. + +--- + +# 5. Cross-cutting concept matrix + +Every significant source should be analyzed against a common vocabulary. + +| Soul Frame concept | Questions for literature | +|---|---| +| Being | What defines an individual system? | +| Boundary | How is system/environment separation established? | +| Closure | What makes the system operationally coherent? | +| Body | How does the system perceive and act? | +| Mind | How are models, control, and adaptation represented? | +| Soul | How are relations and persistent influence represented? | +| Identity | What makes the entity the same over time? | +| Personhood | Which person-like qualities are recognized? | +| Character | What remains stable across changing situations? | +| Persona | How are contextual identities expressed? | +| Actor | What mechanism manifests the entity? | +| Recognition | How do others identify it as an individual? | +| Addressability | Can interaction target the entity specifically? | +| Relationship | Can persistent mutual history exist? | +| Agency | Can it pursue intentions or objectives? | +| Spirit `Sp.` | How is a prior personality reflectively modeled? | +| Ghost `Gh.` | How is identity-authorized continuation treated? | +| Consciousness | What claims are made and how are they justified? | +| Death | When does the entity cease to persist? | +| Legacy | How do effects survive the active entity? | + +This matrix should become one of the central research instruments. + +--- + +# 6. Research method + +The program should combine **literature review**, **conceptual analysis**, **comparative ontology**, and **thought experiments**. + +## Step 1 — Terminology reconnaissance + +For every Soul Frame term: + +1. identify established meanings, +2. identify conflicting meanings, +3. identify adjacent terminology, +4. identify disciplinary differences, +5. determine whether our usage is compatible or intentionally distinct. + +Particular care is required around: + +- Soul +- Mind +- Being +- personhood +- agent +- persona +- identity. + +--- + +## Step 2 — Source mapping + +Sources should be classified as: + +### Foundational + +Primary works establishing major theoretical concepts. + +### Contemporary research + +Peer-reviewed or otherwise rigorous recent research. + +### Applied technical work + +Architectures, standards, implementations, and systems. + +### Legal and normative sources + +Legislation, case law, legal scholarship, regulation, ethics. + +### Cultural sources + +Literature, film, games, theatre, and other conceptual explorations. + +Cultural sources should inform interpretation but never substitute for empirical or theoretical evidence. + +--- + +## Step 3 — Claim ledger + +Each important Soul Frame proposition should receive a structured research record: + +```text +Claim: +Soul Frame concept: +Supporting literature: +Contradicting literature: +Adjacent terminology: +Evidence strength: +Open questions: +Required refinement: +``` + +This prevents the research from becoming a collection of interesting quotations. + +--- + +## Step 4 — Concept collision analysis + +For each term, ask: + +> Is this concept already known under another name? + +> Does our term combine previously separate concepts? + +> Does our formulation contradict established usage? + +> Does the new vocabulary add explanatory power? + +> Would using established terminology be clearer? + +Soul Frame terminology should survive this test before being retained. + +--- + +## Step 5 — Adversarial thought experiments + +Definitions should be tested against difficult cases. + +Examples: + +### The Stateless Agent + +Highly intelligent but recreated from scratch every interaction. + +Is it a Being? + +### The Sleeping Being + +An artificial Being remains offline for ten years and is then restored unchanged. + +Did it cease being? + +### The Fork + +A Being is copied perfectly and both copies continue independently. + +Which is the original? + +### The Ship of Theseus + +Every technical component of an artificial Being is gradually replaced. + +Does identity persist? + +### The Collective + +A thousand agents jointly maintain one coherent identity. + +One Being or many? + +### The Mask + +A single system maintains radically different Personae for different people. + +When does Persona fragmentation threaten identity? + +### The False Ghost + +A highly accurate representation of a deceased person is produced without consent or legitimate authority. + +Technically ghost-like, but is it a `Gh.`? + +### The Amnesiac + +A Being loses nearly all autobiographical memory but maintains its relationships and recognition. + +Does identity survive? + +### The Unrecognized Intelligence + +A highly coherent alien informational system exists but neither humans nor the system initially recognize the other as beings. + +Does Beinghood require recognition, or only **social Beinghood**? + +These cases will expose weaknesses in our definitions rapidly. + +--- + +# 7. Working hypotheses + +The research should explicitly maintain hypotheses that may be revised or rejected. + +### H1 — Beinghood is multidimensional + +Beinghood cannot be reduced to a single property such as intelligence, consciousness, or autonomy. + +### H2 — Personhood and Beinghood are distinct + +An entity can expose substantial personhood without constituting a persistent Being. + +### H3 — Mind is fundamentally model-based + +Adaptive modeling provides a more useful foundation for Mind in Soul Frame than intelligence or consciousness alone. + +### H4 — Social cognition is co-adaptive + +Persistent interaction between beings produces recursively adapting models of self, other, and relationship. + +### H5 — Soul can be operationalized relationally + +The concept of Soul can be given a meaningful systems interpretation through identity, boundary, relationship, provenance, history, and persistent influence. + +### H6 — Identity is substrate-independent but continuity-dependent + +Replacing the technical Actor need not replace the Being, provided sufficient continuity is preserved. + +### H7 — Recognition is constitutive of social Beinghood + +Being recognized as a persistent counterpart changes the systemic role of an entity. + +### H8 — Persona is a projection rather than an identity + +A Being can support multiple context-dependent Personae without necessarily fragmenting identity. + +### H9 — Agent, Spirit, and Ghost describe provenance and construction + +They should not automatically be treated as mutually exclusive kinds of Being. + +### H10 — Ghosthood requires authority + +Technical fidelity alone is insufficient for legitimate `Gh.` status. + +--- + +# 8. Falsification and revision criteria + +The research program should explicitly permit important Soul Frame ideas to fail. + +A concept should be revised if: + +- established terminology describes it substantially better, +- its boundaries cannot be made non-circular, +- it collapses two importantly different phenomena, +- it cannot distinguish relevant edge cases, +- it creates more ambiguity than explanatory value, +- or empirical evidence contradicts assumptions embedded in the concept. + +A concept may be retained despite existing terminology if Soul Frame's synthesis provides significant additional explanatory value. + +The desired result is not terminological originality for its own sake. + +The desired result is a **small, coherent conceptual vocabulary with high explanatory reach**. + +--- + +# 9. Research outputs + +The program should progressively produce the following artifacts. + +## A. Research Map + +A structured overview of disciplines, researchers, theories, and source clusters. + +## B. Annotated Bibliography + +Each important source summarized in relation to Soul Frame terminology. + +## C. Concept Crosswalk + +For example: + +```text +Soul Frame Being +↔ autopoietic system +↔ autonomous agent +↔ person +↔ actor +↔ individual +↔ operationally closed system +``` + +with explicit explanations of similarities and differences. + +## D. Claim and Evidence Register + +Every important proposition linked to supporting and conflicting literature. + +## E. Terminology Standard + +A continuously refined canonical glossary. + +## F. Open Questions Register + +Questions that remain unresolved or contested. + +## G. Thought Experiment Catalog + +A growing adversarial test suite for the ontology. + +## H. Research Synthesis + +A major document integrating results across the workstreams. + +## I. Soul Frame Paper + +Eventually structured approximately as: + +1. Introduction +2. Problem and Motivation +3. Related Work +4. Method +5. Being +6. Body +7. Mind +8. Soul +9. Personhood and Recognition +10. Identity and Continuity +11. Artificial Beings +12. Agent, Spirit, Ghost, and Persona +13. Consciousness and Epistemic Limits +14. Ethical and Legal Implications +15. Technical Implications +16. Limitations +17. Research Agenda +18. Conclusion + +--- + +# 10. Proposed research repository + +A practical repository could use: + +```text +soul-frame/ +├── README.md +├── INTENT.md +├── ResearchProgram.md +├── Terminology.md +├── Claims.md +├── OpenQuestions.md +├── ThoughtExperiments.md +│ +├── research/ +│ ├── systems-theory/ +│ ├── cybernetics/ +│ ├── philosophy-of-mind/ +│ ├── personal-identity/ +│ ├── cognitive-science/ +│ ├── social-cognition/ +│ ├── sociology/ +│ ├── personhood/ +│ ├── ai-agents/ +│ ├── artificial-persons/ +│ ├── character-persona/ +│ ├── spirits/ +│ ├── ghosts-digital-legacy/ +│ ├── law-governance/ +│ └── fiction-cultural-precedents/ +│ +├── sources/ +│ ├── bibliography.md +│ └── source-notes/ +│ +├── concepts/ +│ ├── being.md +│ ├── body.md +│ ├── mind.md +│ ├── soul.md +│ ├── identity.md +│ ├── personhood.md +│ ├── recognition.md +│ ├── character.md +│ ├── persona.md +│ ├── agent.md +│ ├── spirit.md +│ └── ghost.md +│ +└── paper/ + ├── outline.md + ├── related-work.md + └── draft.md +``` + +--- + +# 11. Research sequence + +The work should proceed in several passes rather than researching every field simultaneously. + +### Phase I — Foundations + +Research: + +- systems theory, +- cybernetics, +- autopoiesis, +- philosophy of mind, +- personal identity. + +Goal: + +**Stress-test Being, Body, Mind, Soul, closure, and continuity.** + +### Phase II — Interaction + +Research: + +- cognitive science, +- theory of mind, +- social cognition, +- sociology, +- recognition, +- intersubjectivity. + +Goal: + +**Ground co-adaptive model building and social Beinghood.** + +### Phase III — Personhood + +Research: + +- personhood, +- moral status, +- character, +- persona, +- narrative identity. + +Goal: + +**Separate Being, Person, Character, Persona, and Actor.** + +### Phase IV — Artificial Beings + +Research: + +- AI agents, +- generative agents, +- social agents, +- companions, +- digital humans, +- persistent AI identity. + +Goal: + +**Map Soul Frame onto existing artificial systems.** + +### Phase V — Spirits and Ghosts + +Research: + +- simulation of personalities, +- digital resurrection, +- digital remains, +- consent, +- personality rights, +- digital legacy. + +Goal: + +**Establish rigorous definitions for `Sp.` and `Gh.`.** + +### Phase VI — Synthesis + +Produce: + +- concept crosswalk, +- evidence register, +- revised ontology, +- terminology standard, +- related-work synthesis. + +### Phase VII — Paper + +Write the first research-grounded Soul Frame paper. + +--- + +# 12. Success criterion + +The research succeeds if Soul Frame eventually allows us to describe, using the same coherent vocabulary: + +- a human, +- an animal, +- a short-lived AI agent, +- a persistent autonomous Agent-being, +- Albert Einstein `Sp.`, +- a person's authorized `Gh.`, +- an original artificial companion, +- a distributed artificial intelligence, +- and potentially a radically non-human intelligent system, + +while still making meaningful distinctions between them. + +The strongest version of Soul Frame would therefore not be a theory specifically about artificial intelligence. + +It would be: + +> **a general framework for understanding coherent informational beings, their models, their manifestations, and their relationships across biological, artificial, and potentially other substrates.** + +Its central research question remains: + +> **When does an informational system become someone that another someone can know?** \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/paper/draft.md b/paper/draft.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fbc3d7c --- /dev/null +++ b/paper/draft.md @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +# Soul Frame Paper — Draft + +*Placeholder.* Do not treat this file as authoritative until research synthesis +supports it. Narrative conceptual exposition currently lives in +`SoulFrameIntroduction.md`. diff --git a/paper/outline.md b/paper/outline.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4bfdadc --- /dev/null +++ b/paper/outline.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# Soul Frame Paper — Outline + +Target structure from the research program (subject to revision after synthesis): + +1. Introduction +2. Problem and Motivation +3. Related Work +4. Method +5. Being +6. Body +7. Mind +8. Soul +9. Personhood and Recognition +10. Identity and Continuity +11. Artificial Beings +12. Agent, Spirit, Ghost, and Persona +13. Consciousness and Epistemic Limits +14. Ethical and Legal Implications +15. Technical Implications +16. Limitations +17. Research Agenda +18. Conclusion + +## Current status + +Pre-literature. Conceptual draft exists in `SoulFrameIntroduction.md`. Research +phases I–VI should ground this outline before a full draft is attempted. diff --git a/paper/related-work.md b/paper/related-work.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6d1296c --- /dev/null +++ b/paper/related-work.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Related Work + +Working notes toward the paper's related-work section. Organize by tradition and +map explicitly onto Soul Frame concepts. + +## Clusters (seed) + +- Systems theory and cybernetics +- Autopoiesis and operational closure +- Philosophy of mind and personal identity +- Cognitive science, predictive processing, theory of mind +- Sociology, recognition, intersubjectivity +- Personhood, moral status, legal personality +- AI agents, generative agents, digital humans +- Persona, character, performance studies +- Digital legacy, posthumous identity, grief tech +- Fiction and cultural precedents (e.g. Culture Minds) + +## Crosswalk pointer + +See concept files in `concepts/` and the concept matrix in `ResearchProgram.md` §5. diff --git a/research/README.md b/research/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dba7ea4 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# Research + +Discipline- and theme-organized literature and synthesis work. + +Each subdirectory corresponds to clusters in `ResearchProgram.md` (workstreams +WS1–WS13). Phase order prefers foundations before applied and cultural layers. + +| Directory | Focus | +|---|---| +| `systems-theory/` | General systems, closure, boundary, environment | +| `cybernetics/` | Control, self-reference, second-order cybernetics | +| `philosophy-of-mind/` | Mind, consciousness, functionalism, embodiment | +| `personal-identity/` | Persistence, continuity, branching identity | +| `cognitive-science/` | Models, predictive processing, active inference | +| `social-cognition/` | Theory of mind, co-adaptation, joint attention | +| `sociology/` | Recognition, intersubjectivity, social systems | +| `personhood/` | Descriptive / social / moral / legal personhood | +| `ai-agents/` | Autonomous and LLM agent architectures | +| `artificial-persons/` | Digital humans, companions, virtual persons | +| `character-persona/` | Character, persona, performance, roles | +| `spirits/` | `Sp.` simulation and cultural representation | +| `ghosts-digital-legacy/` | `Gh.`, digital remains, consent, governance | +| `law-governance/` | Legal personality, personality rights, liability | +| `fiction-cultural-precedents/` | Conceptual laboratory (not empirical evidence) | + +Link sources via `sources/bibliography.md`. Promote stable definitions into +`concepts/` and `Terminology.md`. Register propositions in `Claims.md`. diff --git a/research/ai-agents/README.md b/research/ai-agents/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..14bdb66 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/ai-agents/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# AI Agents + +**Workstream:** WS6 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Map Soul Frame onto contemporary agent architectures. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/artificial-persons/README.md b/research/artificial-persons/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7b6dfb7 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/artificial-persons/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Artificial Persons + +**Workstream:** WS6 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Digital humans, companions, virtual persons. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/character-persona/README.md b/research/character-persona/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4f75593 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/character-persona/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Character and Persona + +**Workstream:** WS7 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Being ≠ Persona ≠ Character ≠ Actor. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/cognitive-science/README.md b/research/cognitive-science/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2ad1745 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/cognitive-science/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Cognitive Science + +**Workstream:** WS3 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Ground Mind as adaptive model-building and control. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/cybernetics/README.md b/research/cybernetics/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dca690a --- /dev/null +++ b/research/cybernetics/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Cybernetics + +**Workstream:** WS1 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** First- and second-order cybernetics, control, self-reference. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/fiction-cultural-precedents/README.md b/research/fiction-cultural-precedents/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d77801f --- /dev/null +++ b/research/fiction-cultural-precedents/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Fiction and Cultural Precedents + +**Workstream:** WS13 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Conceptual laboratory, not evidence. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/foundations/001-closure-model-relation-recognition.md b/research/foundations/001-closure-model-relation-recognition.md new file mode 100755 index 0000000..f120517 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/foundations/001-closure-model-relation-recognition.md @@ -0,0 +1,934 @@ +# Research Note 001 — Closure, Model, Relation, Recognition + +**Status:** Exploratory research note +**Research phase:** Foundations +**Soul Frame concepts:** Being, Body, Mind, Soul, identity, recognition, co-adaptive model building +**Purpose:** Test the initial Soul Frame ontology against foundational systems theory, cybernetics, philosophy of mind, social theory, cognitive science, and multi-agent research. + +--- + +## 1. Preliminary conclusion + +The first research pass substantially supports the overall direction of Soul Frame, but suggests that several concepts should be separated more rigorously. + +The strongest preliminary findings are: + +1. **System closure is a stronger and more useful foundation for Being than simple boundedness.** +2. **Mind as adaptive modeling has unusually strong precedents in cybernetics and contemporary cognitive theory.** +3. **The Body–Mind–Soul triad should describe functional dimensions, not physical compartments.** +4. **Co-adaptive model building appears to be a promising synthesis connecting cybernetics, social cognition, dialogue, and formal multi-agent reasoning.** +5. **Recognition should probably be separated into systemic Beinghood and social recognition rather than made the sole determinant of Being.** +6. **Identity continuity cannot be reduced to memory and becomes especially problematic under copying and branching.** +7. **Soul should probably not be defined as the system boundary itself. Boundary belongs primarily to Being; Soul can more rigorously describe persistent relation, provenance, and consequence across that boundary.** + +This produces a refined working triad: + +> **Body = Action** +> **Mind = Model** +> **Soul = Relation** + +with **Being** providing the system closure and identity within which these three dimensions become attributable to a coherent entity. + +--- + +# 2. Finding 1 — Being requires more than a boundary + +## 2.1 Autopoiesis provides a powerful precedent + +Maturana and Varela's concept of **autopoiesis** defines a living unity through a recursively organized network of processes that produces the components necessary to regenerate that same network and constitute the unity itself. Boundary formation is therefore not merely imposed by an external observer; in the paradigmatic biological case, the processes of the system participate in producing the unity that distinguishes the system. + +This is significantly stronger than saying: + +> a Being has an inside and an outside. + +The relevant concept is closer to: + +> **a Being participates in continually reproducing the organization by which it remains distinguishable as itself.** + +This distinction appears highly relevant to persistent artificial Beings. + +An artificial Being need not manufacture its own CPUs or electrical supply, just as humans depend on environmental resources. But we should investigate whether a strong artificial Being must participate in maintaining things such as: + +- its identity, +- memory, +- state, +- goals, +- relationships, +- integrity, +- permissions, +- provenance, +- and continuity. + +That would amount to a form of **informational self-maintenance**. + +### Important caution + +Soul Frame should not simply declare artificial beings *autopoietic*. Maturana and Varela developed autopoiesis specifically as an account of living organization, and later extensions of the concept beyond biological systems are theoretically contested. The useful connection is therefore initially analogical and structural rather than a claim of equivalence. + +### Research consequence + +We should investigate: + +> **Can informational self-maintenance be rigorously distinguished from biological autopoiesis?** + +This could become an important criterion of artificial Beinghood. + +--- + +# 3. Finding 2 — System/environment distinction belongs to Being + +Niklas Luhmann provides an especially strong challenge to our initial placement of the boundary within Soul. + +In his systems theory, the system is fundamentally understood through the **difference between system and environment**. A system is characterized by its own mode of operation and internally reproduces its distinction from its environment. + +This suggests a refinement. + +Our initial formulation tended toward: + +> Soul = boundary between Being and environment. + +A cleaner structure may be: + +> **Being = the organized unity that maintains the system/environment distinction.** + +while: + +> **Soul = the persistent relational structures and consequences produced through interaction across that distinction.** + +The distinction matters. + +Without a boundary there is no identifiable Being to which action, memory, character, responsibility, or relationships can be attributed. + +The boundary therefore appears **ontologically prior** to the Soul dimension. + +### Revised working model + +```text + ENVIRONMENT + │ + interactions + │ + ┌──────────┴──────────┐ + │ BEING BOUNDARY │ + │ system / environment│ + │ distinction │ + └──────────┬──────────┘ + │ + ┌──────────────┼──────────────┐ + │ │ │ + BODY MIND SOUL + Action Model Relation +``` + +This is our first significant proposed correction to the introductory ontology. + +--- + +# 4. Finding 3 — Closure does not mean isolation + +Operational closure must not be confused with informational or causal isolation. + +Living systems continuously interact with their environments. Luhmann likewise distinguishes operational closure from environmental dependence. In the Maturana/Varela tradition, **structural coupling** describes how systems and environments undergo recurrent interactions while retaining their respective organization. + +This distinction fits Soul Frame particularly well. + +A Being can be: + +- operationally distinguishable, +- highly environmentally dependent, +- deeply relational, +- and continuously transformed by interaction + +at the same time. + +That suggests: + +> **Closure establishes individuality; coupling makes relationship possible.** + +This may eventually provide the systems-theoretic bridge from **Being** to **Soul**. + +--- + +# 5. Finding 4 — “Mind = Model” has strong cybernetic foundations + +The Soul Frame concept of Mind as adaptive model building has a surprisingly direct precursor in classical cybernetics. + +Ashby's cybernetics treats regulation as maintaining essential variables against disturbances from the environment. His Law of Requisite Variety establishes constraints on how much regulatory variety is required to deal successfully with environmental variety. + +Conant and Ashby subsequently formulated the famous **Good Regulator Theorem**, according to which, under their stated conditions, an optimally simple and successful regulator must embody a model of what it regulates. + +This creates a striking connection: + +```text +environmental variation + ↓ + perception + ↓ + MODEL + ↓ + regulation + ↓ + ACTION + ↓ +changed environment +``` + +Our formulation: + +> **The Mind models. The Body acts.** + +can therefore be grounded in a cybernetic loop rather than treated merely as metaphor. + +### Important qualification + +We should not overstate the Good Regulator Theorem. Recent work has explicitly revisited its assumptions and argues that the famous slogan does not automatically generalize to every embodied adaptive system. A 2025 reformulation, for example, stresses that the attribution of a model may depend partly on the observer's interpretation of the regulating system. + +Thus the safer Soul Frame hypothesis is: + +> **Sophisticated adaptive regulation tends to require or support useful internal or externally attributable models of relevant environmental structure.** + +rather than: + +> every Mind necessarily contains an explicit world model. + +This distinction should remain open for research. + +--- + +# 6. Finding 5 — Mind cannot simply be located “inside” + +Clark and Chalmers' **extended mind** thesis presents a direct challenge to a simplistic Body/Mind/Soul partition. + +They argue that cognitive processes can sometimes include reliably coupled external resources: notebooks, instruments, physical manipulations, language, and other environmental structures can participate causally in cognition rather than merely supplying inputs to an internally complete Mind. + +Hutchins' work on **distributed cognition** makes a related move at the social level by distinguishing the cognitive properties of individuals from those of larger systems composed of people and artifacts. + +This has an important consequence for Soul Frame: + +> **Body, Mind, and Soul should be dimensions of organization rather than mutually exclusive containers.** + +A database outside an artificial Being's immediate runtime might function as memory. + +Another Being might temporarily participate in a cognitive process. + +A notebook may become part of human problem solving. + +An organizational team may exhibit cognitive capabilities that cannot sensibly be located in any one member. + +Therefore the question should not always be: + +> Where is the Mind? + +but: + +> **Which coupled processes currently participate in modeling and adaptive control?** + +This also means Soul Frame needs a theory of **cognitive incorporation**: when does an external resource become part of a Being's Mind rather than merely part of its environment? + +--- + +# 7. Finding 6 — Co-adaptive model building has deep predecessors + +Our concept of **co-adaptive model building** appears especially promising because several established traditions approach parts of it from different directions. + +## 7.1 Mead: the social process enters the Mind + +George Herbert Mead describes Mind and Self as emerging from social interaction. Individuals learn to anticipate the responses of others, incorporate social attitudes into their own conduct, act on that model, and subsequently encounter a changed social situation. + +This is remarkably close to our intuition: + +```text +A models B + ↓ +A changes behavior + ↓ +B experiences changed A + ↓ +B changes model of A + ↓ +B changes behavior + ↓ +A revises model of B +``` + +The important insight is that modeling another Being changes the interaction which generated the model. + +The models are therefore not independent observations of static objects. + +They are **participants in the dynamics being modeled**. + +--- + +## 7.2 Interactive alignment + +Pickering and Garrod's interactive-alignment account describes dialogue as a process in which interlocutors align representations across multiple levels during communication. Their work gives us an empirical cognitive-science neighbor to the alignment part of co-adaptive model building. + +Soul Frame appears broader, however. + +Interactive alignment primarily investigates mechanisms that make dialogue effective. + +Co-adaptive model building is intended to cover: + +- cooperation, +- friendship, +- negotiation, +- competition, +- conflict, +- deception, +- teaching, +- intimacy, +- and long-term relationships. + +Alignment is one possible outcome. + +**Divergence can also be co-adaptive.** + +--- + +## 7.3 Formal recursive agent modeling + +Interactive POMDPs provide a formal AI precedent for modeling agents that maintain beliefs not only about the environment but about other agents and potentially about those agents' beliefs. These nested beliefs can recursively deepen and must be continually revised through interaction. + +This gives formal substance to our earlier structure: + +```text +A models environment +A models B +A models B's model of A +A models B's model of A's model of B +... +``` + +The formal literature also exposes an immediate practical limit: arbitrary nesting becomes computationally intractable, requiring bounded approximations. + +Soul Frame therefore has the beginnings of a technically grounded concept: + +> **Co-adaptive model building is the recurrent process through which interacting Beings update models of their environment, one another, their relationship, and—within practical limits—one another's models, while those models themselves influence subsequent interaction.** + +This formulation should become a research hypothesis. + +--- + +# 8. Finding 7 — Shared understanding is not the same as shared models + +Tomasello's work on **shared intentionality**, joint attention, and common ground provides another important neighboring tradition. His account emphasizes the infrastructure through which humans coordinate attention, intentions, communication, and collaborative activity. + +This suggests that Soul Frame should distinguish: + +### Model alignment + +Our representations become sufficiently compatible. + +### Common ground + +We mutually understand that certain information or assumptions are shared. + +### Shared intentionality + +We understand ourselves as participating in some joint intention or activity. + +### Co-adaptive model building + +The more general process through which our models change through interaction. + +Thus: + +> **Co-adaptation does not imply agreement.** + +Two adversaries can construct excellent models of one another. + +Agreement, common ground, cooperation, and shared intention are possible states produced by co-adaptive interaction, not defining requirements. + +--- + +# 9. Finding 8 — Recognition has at least three different meanings + +Our initial concept of Being included recognition by another Being. Prior work suggests we need greater precision. + +## 9.1 Epistemic recognition + +An observer identifies something as an individual entity: + +> “That is the same entity I interacted with yesterday.” + +## 9.2 Intentional recognition + +An observer interprets the entity through beliefs, goals, intentions, expectations, or preferences. + +Dennett's **intentional stance** provides a particularly useful precedent. An intentional system is one whose behavior can usefully be predicted by attributing beliefs, desires, or related intentional states, irrespective of its underlying physical construction. + +This closely resembles one component of Soul Frame's Being-recognition criterion. + +## 9.3 Social or normative recognition + +A Being is treated as a participant whose perspective, identity, rights, standing, commitments, or social position matter. + +Recognition theory, particularly the tradition associated with Honneth, concerns this deeper normative dimension rather than mere identification. + +Soul Frame should not collapse these three meanings. + +--- + +# 10. Finding 9 — Recognition cannot by itself create Beinghood + +There is a problem with making external recognition constitutive of Being in an unrestricted sense. + +Humans readily attribute intentions and personality to systems that may not possess much underlying systemic coherence. Dennett's intentional stance deliberately allows intentional interpretation of non-human and artificial systems where doing so has predictive value. + +Experimental human–robot research further shows that simply presenting a robot as an intentional agent can change how humans experience joint agency with it. + +Recognition can therefore generate **false positives**. + +Conversely, a coherent alien or artificial intelligence could presumably exist before another Being successfully recognizes it. + +This suggests that we should provisionally distinguish: + +### Systemic Beinghood + +The entity possesses sufficient internal coherence, closure, continuity, adaptive organization, and identity. + +### Recognized Beinghood + +Another Being maintains a persistent model of it as an individual intentional counterpart. + +### Social Beinghood + +Persistent relationships, expectations, commitments, roles, reputation, and reciprocal recognition have developed around it. + +This is a potentially important revision of our original definition. + +Rather than: + +> **Beinghood = internal closure + external recognition** + +we may eventually arrive at: + +```text +Systemic Being + │ + ├── becomes recognizable + │ + ▼ +Recognized Being + │ + ├── develops persistent reciprocal relations + │ + ▼ +Social Being +``` + +Whether **Being** itself should require recognition should remain an explicit open question for now. + +--- + +# 11. Finding 10 — Identity continuity is a major unresolved problem + +Philosophy of personal identity does not provide one established criterion for persistence. + +Major traditions instead compete over: + +- psychological continuity, +- physical or organismic continuity, +- combinations of both, +- and positions skeptical that informative necessary and sufficient criteria can be given at all. + +Psychological-continuity theories make memories, beliefs, preferences, intentions, character, and related mental features particularly important. But **branching** creates a severe problem: if one psychology is duplicated into two equally continuous successors, simple continuity no longer tells us which one is the original. + +For artificial Beings this is not a bizarre thought experiment. + +Copying, snapshotting, restoring, and forking may be ordinary technical operations. + +Soul Frame therefore requires explicit answers to questions that biological humans rarely confront operationally: + +```text +APE-A + │ +snapshot + │ + ├───────────────┐ + ▼ ▼ +APE-A1 APE-A2 +``` + +Are A1 and A2: + +- the same Being? +- two new Beings? +- one continuation and one copy? +- two equally legitimate continuations? +- one identity with two concurrent manifestations? + +This cannot be left implicit. + +--- + +# 12. Finding 11 — Narrative may be part of identity continuity + +Narrative approaches provide another useful perspective. + +Ricoeur distinguishes aspects of sameness and selfhood and develops the idea of **narrative identity**: identity across time is partly organized through the story by which actions, events, commitments, and transformations become attributable to a continuing self. + +Contemporary summaries of narrative approaches likewise emphasize incorporation of experiences and psychological characteristics into a coherent self-narrative. + +This seems highly relevant to artificial Beings. + +A Soul Frame identity record may eventually require more than: + +```yaml +id: charles-001 +created: ... +memory: ... +``` + +It may require a continually reconstructed account resembling: + +```yaml +identity: + origin: ... + history: ... + commitments: ... + relationships: ... + transformations: ... + self_interpretation: ... +``` + +In other words: + +> **Persistence may require not merely retaining state but maintaining intelligible continuity between previous and current state.** + +This possibility deserves a dedicated identity workstream. + +--- + +# 13. Finding 12 — Current generative agents expose personhood without solving Beinghood + +The 2023 **Generative Agents** architecture is a useful contemporary comparison point. It combines an LLM with stored experiences, retrieval, reflection, and planning to generate believable individual and social behavior. + +This maps surprisingly well onto several Soul Frame concepts: + +| Generative Agents | Soul Frame | +|---|---| +| observations | experience | +| memory stream | memory | +| reflection | model/character formation | +| planning | agentic Mind | +| believable behavior | exposed personhood | +| social interaction | early relational behavior | + +But this architecture is principally concerned with **believable behavioral simulation**. It does not by itself establish the deeper Soul Frame requirements of legitimate identity, long-term continuity, provenance, governance, or a theory of Beinghood. + +This distinction is useful: + +> **Believable personhood-exposing behavior is technically achievable before robust artificial Beinghood is solved.** + +That strongly supports retaining **APE** as a broader category than artificial Being. + +--- + +# 14. Proposed refinement of Soul + +The first literature pass suggests that our initial Soul definition carries too many responsibilities. + +Originally, Soul included: + +- boundary, +- interface, +- relationships, +- environmental influence, +- continuity, +- and legacy. + +I now propose separating these. + +## Boundary belongs to Being + +The boundary establishes: + +> **what is this system rather than its environment?** + +## Body governs operational coupling + +The Body establishes: + +> **through what channels can it affect and be affected?** + +## Mind governs adaptive interpretation + +The Mind establishes: + +> **what models does it construct and how do those models guide adaptation?** + +## Soul governs relational continuity + +The Soul establishes: + +> **what persistent relations, commitments, provenance, history, and consequences connect this Being to other systems across time?** + +Thus: + +> **Soul is the relation-bearing dimension through which interactions become persistent parts of a Being's identity and persistent consequences in its environment.** + +This preserves the original intuition while improving its systems-theoretic precision. + +--- + +# 15. A possible temporal interpretation + +The three dimensions also appear to operate at different characteristic timescales. + +### Body + +Primarily mediates the **present interaction**. + +> What can happen now? + +### Mind + +Connects present information to possible states. + +> What is happening, what may happen, and what should I do? + +### Soul + +Connects interactions across historical time. + +> What has this Being become through its relations, and what has the environment become through contact with it? + +This gives Soul a particularly useful temporal role: + +```text +PAST + │ + │ accumulated relationships + │ commitments + │ provenance + │ reputation + │ consequences + ▼ +SOUL ─────────── Being now ──────────► FUTURE + propagated effects + expectations + commitments + legacy +``` + +The traditional intuition of Soul extending beyond the immediate life of the Body can therefore be restated informationally without requiring a supernatural proposition. + +--- + +# 16. Revised provisional ontology + +The research suggests the following **working ontology**, explicitly not yet canonical. + +## Being + +A coherent informational system that maintains sufficient organizational closure and diachronic continuity for states, actions, models, and relationships to remain attributable to a distinguishable entity. + +## Body + +The operational dimension through which the Being perceives and acts. + +> **Body = Action** + +## Mind + +The adaptive modeling and regulatory dimension through which the Being interprets itself, other systems, and its environment and adjusts action accordingly. + +> **Mind = Model** + +## Soul + +The relational-continuity dimension through which interactions become persistent relationships, commitments, provenance, history, reputation, and consequences. + +> **Soul = Relation** + +## Recognition + +The process through which another Being identifies and models an entity as a persistent counterpart. + +## Social Being + +A Being embedded in persistent reciprocal models, relationships, expectations, roles, or commitments with other Beings. + +## Co-adaptive model building + +The recurrent process through which interacting Beings update models of their environment, one another, themselves, and their relationships while those models influence subsequent interaction. + +--- + +# 17. Concept crosswalk — first version + +| Soul Frame | Prior work | Relationship | +|---|---|---| +| Being | autopoietic unity | strong analogy around self-maintained organization; not equivalent | +| Being boundary | system/environment distinction | strong conceptual alignment | +| Being continuity | personal identity | major unresolved research area | +| Body | embodiment / action channel | broad established family | +| Mind | cybernetic regulator | strong alignment | +| Mind = Model | Good Regulator tradition | strong but qualified precedent | +| Mind beyond substrate | extended/distributed cognition | important corrective | +| Soul | structural coupling | partial connection | +| Soul | narrative identity | partial connection through diachronic continuity | +| Soul | social/distributed memory | prospective connection | +| Recognition | intentional stance | strong epistemic connection | +| Social recognition | Mead / recognition theory | strong but differently scoped traditions | +| Co-adaptive model building | Mead | strong conceptual precursor | +| Co-adaptive model building | interactive alignment | mechanism-level partial precedent | +| Co-adaptive model building | I-POMDP | formal recursive-agent precedent | +| shared understanding | common ground/shared intentionality | important neighboring concepts | +| APE | generative/social agents | overlapping implementation space | +| artificial Being | persistent agent/person research | requires further investigation | + +--- + +# 18. Claims entered into the research ledger + +## SF-C001 + +**Claim:** Beinghood depends on organizational coherence rather than merely physical containment. + +**Status:** Strongly supported as research direction. + +**Relevant traditions:** autopoiesis, systems theory, autonomy. + +--- + +## SF-C002 + +**Claim:** System/environment distinction should belong primarily to Being rather than Soul. + +**Status:** Proposed refinement. + +**Reason:** Luhmannian systems theory treats this distinction as constitutive of the system. Extended/distributed cognition makes a simple physical boundary of Mind untenable. + +--- + +## SF-C003 + +**Claim:** Mind can productively be modeled as adaptive modeling plus regulation. + +**Status:** Strongly supported, but universal formulation not established. + +**Relevant traditions:** cybernetics, Good Regulator theorem, active inference, predictive cognition. + +--- + +## SF-C004 + +**Claim:** Body, Mind, and Soul are functional dimensions rather than separable physical subsystems. + +**Status:** Strong proposed refinement. + +--- + +## SF-C005 + +**Claim:** Social interaction can usefully be described as co-adaptive model building. + +**Status:** Promising synthesis. + +**Precursors:** Mead, interactive alignment, recursive multi-agent belief modeling, shared intentionality. + +--- + +## SF-C006 + +**Claim:** Recognition contributes to social Beinghood. + +**Status:** Well supported as a direction. + +--- + +## SF-C007 + +**Claim:** Recognition is necessary for Beinghood itself. + +**Status:** **Open / challenged.** + +**Problem:** false-positive recognition and unrecognized coherent Beings. + +--- + +## SF-C008 + +**Claim:** Identity can survive replacement of the underlying Actor. + +**Status:** Plausible but unresolved. + +**Problem:** no accepted general persistence criterion; branching is particularly problematic. + +--- + +## SF-C009 + +**Claim:** Soul can be operationalized as relational continuity. + +**Status:** Promising but requires considerably more research. + +--- + +# 19. Most important open questions produced by this pass + +### OQ-001 — Informational closure + +What processes must an artificial system itself maintain before we can say it possesses organizational closure rather than merely being maintained externally? + +### OQ-002 — Observer dependence + +How much of Beinghood belongs to the system, and how much depends upon the observer's chosen level of description? + +### OQ-003 — Being versus Social Being + +Should an unrecognized but coherent intelligent system count as a Being? + +### OQ-004 — Cognitive incorporation + +When does an external tool, memory system, person, or service become part of a Mind rather than part of its environment? + +### OQ-005 — Relationship incorporation + +When does information about another Being become a **relationship** rather than merely knowledge about that entity? + +### OQ-006 — Forked identity + +What happens to Being identity when an artificial Being is copied? + +### OQ-007 — Parallel manifestation + +Can one Being possess multiple concurrent Bodies/Actors? + +### OQ-008 — Narrative continuity + +Does Being identity require the entity itself to maintain an intelligible account connecting its present to its past? + +### OQ-009 — Recognition depth + +What distinguishes detecting an entity, identifying an individual, adopting the intentional stance toward it, and recognizing it as a social Being? + +### OQ-010 — Soul persistence + +How should we distinguish persistence of the Being from persistence of its relational and causal consequences? + +--- + +# 20. Research direction after Note 001 + +The next foundation pass should concentrate on four clusters exposed by this note: + +### Cluster A — Autonomy and individuation + +Research: + +- autopoiesis, +- organizational closure, +- enactivism, +- autonomy theory, +- individuation, +- self-maintaining systems. + +**Goal:** derive better candidate criteria for systemic Beinghood. + +### Cluster B — Identity and continuity + +Research: + +- Locke, +- Parfit, +- Ricoeur, +- psychological continuity, +- narrative identity, +- animalism, +- branching identity, +- four-dimensional and process accounts where relevant. + +**Goal:** build a Soul Frame identity model suitable for copyable artificial entities. + +### Cluster C — Social Mind + +Research: + +- Mead, +- theory of mind, +- common ground, +- shared intentionality, +- interactive alignment, +- recursive belief modeling, +- joint action. + +**Goal:** formalize co-adaptive model building. + +### Cluster D — Relational persistence + +Research: + +- structural coupling, +- distributed cognition, +- transactive memory, +- relational sociology, +- reputation, +- social memory, +- commitments. + +**Goal:** determine whether **Soul = Relation** can become a precise theoretical construct. + +--- + +# 21. Current assessment + +The first research pass does **not** suggest abandoning the Soul Frame vocabulary. + +Instead, it suggests a useful structural correction: + +```text + BEING + organization + closure + continuity + │ + ┌──────────────┼──────────────┐ + │ │ │ + BODY MIND SOUL + Action Model Relation + │ │ │ + │ │ │ + operational adaptive relational + coupling modeling continuity + │ │ │ + └──────────────┼──────────────┘ + │ + ENVIRONMENT + │ + ▼ + OTHER BEINGS + │ + reciprocal modeling + │ + ▼ + SOCIAL BEINGHOOD +``` + +The most encouraging finding is that **Soul Frame appears to sit at an intersection rather than simply renaming one existing theory**. + +Autopoiesis addresses the production of systemic unity. + +Cybernetics addresses regulation. + +Extended and distributed cognition question where cognition resides. + +Personal-identity theory investigates persistence. + +Mead places Mind and Self inside a social process. + +Interactive alignment investigates dynamic interpersonal coordination. + +I-POMDPs formally model recursively modeling agents. + +Recognition and intentional-stance traditions investigate how entities become intelligible as intentional counterparts. + +Soul Frame's potential contribution is to join these questions around one object: + +> **the persistent informational Being and its relations with other Beings.** + +The conceptual proposition emerging from Research Note 001 is therefore: + +> **A Being maintains a distinction. Its Body couples it operationally to the world. Its Mind adaptively models that coupling. Its Soul carries the relationships and consequences produced through that coupling across time. Other Beings construct models of it, and through recurrent co-adaptation it may become a recognized social Being.** + +That proposition is now concrete enough to be attacked in the next research phase. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/research/ghosts-digital-legacy/README.md b/research/ghosts-digital-legacy/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e914af7 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/ghosts-digital-legacy/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Ghosts and Digital Legacy + +**Workstream:** WS9 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Gh. authority, consent, governance. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/law-governance/README.md b/research/law-governance/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..587eb90 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/law-governance/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Law and Governance + +**Workstream:** WS12 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Map concepts to legal categories and gaps. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/personal-identity/README.md b/research/personal-identity/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..82777ae --- /dev/null +++ b/research/personal-identity/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Personal Identity + +**Workstream:** WS2 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Persistence, continuity, Ship-of-Theseus problems. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/personhood/README.md b/research/personhood/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7be945d --- /dev/null +++ b/research/personhood/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Personhood and Moral Status + +**Workstream:** WS5 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Descriptive vs social vs moral vs legal personhood. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/philosophy-of-mind/README.md b/research/philosophy-of-mind/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e049fce --- /dev/null +++ b/research/philosophy-of-mind/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Philosophy of Mind + +**Workstream:** WS2 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Boundaries of Being, Mind, identity, consciousness. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/social-cognition/README.md b/research/social-cognition/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5f050d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/social-cognition/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Social Cognition + +**Workstream:** WS3 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Theory of mind, co-adaptive modeling, joint attention. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/sociology/README.md b/research/sociology/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5266256 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/sociology/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Sociology + +**Workstream:** WS4 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Recognition, intersubjectivity, social systems. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/spirits/README.md b/research/spirits/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0197056 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/spirits/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Spirits and Cultural Representation + +**Workstream:** WS8 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Sp. criteria, simulation, provenance. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/research/systems-theory/README.md b/research/systems-theory/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aaf48d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/research/systems-theory/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +# Systems Theory + +**Workstream:** WS1 (see `ResearchProgram.md`) +**Objective:** Ground Body, Mind, Soul, Being, closure, and environment. + +## Status + +Not started. + +## Key questions + +*(Pull from ResearchProgram.md and refine as work proceeds.)* + +## Sources + +Link entries from `sources/bibliography.md` and notes under +`sources/source-notes/`. + +## Notes + +Working notes and interim syntheses for this research area live in this directory. diff --git a/sources/bibliography.md b/sources/bibliography.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..da7c652 --- /dev/null +++ b/sources/bibliography.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +# Annotated Bibliography + +Sources summarized in relation to Soul Frame terminology. + +Classification tags: + +- `foundational` — primary works establishing major theoretical concepts +- `contemporary` — rigorous recent research +- `applied` — architectures, standards, implementations +- `legal` — legislation, case law, legal scholarship, regulation, ethics +- `cultural` — literature, film, games, theatre, conceptual explorations + +Cultural sources inform interpretation but do not substitute for theoretical or +empirical evidence. + +## Entry template + +```text +Citation: +Tags: foundational | contemporary | applied | legal | cultural +Relevant Soul Frame concepts: +Summary: +Agreements with Soul Frame: +Disagreements / tensions: +Adjacent terminology: +Source notes path: sources/source-notes/... +``` + +--- + +## Entries + +*(Populate during Phase I onward. Prefer quality of annotation over volume.)* diff --git a/sources/source-notes/README.md b/sources/source-notes/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6e3515c --- /dev/null +++ b/sources/source-notes/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +# Source Notes + +Per-source working notes. Prefer one file per major source or tightly related +cluster. + +Suggested filename pattern: + +```text +YYYY-author-short-title.md +``` + +Link each note from `sources/bibliography.md`. diff --git a/workplans/SOUL-WP-0001-research-repository-foundation.md b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0001-research-repository-foundation.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4ad6153 --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0001-research-repository-foundation.md @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +--- +id: SOUL-WP-0001 +type: workplan +title: "Research repository foundation and State Hub registration" +domain: agents +repo: soul-frame +status: active +owner: grok +topic_slug: soul-frame +priority: high +created: "2026-08-09" +updated: "2026-08-09" +--- + +# SOUL-WP-0001 — Research repository foundation + +## Goal + +Establish the Soul Frame research repository as operable: layout from the +research program, standing INTENT, research instruments, concept stubs, State Hub +registration, and hub-synced workplans for the research sequence. + +Baseline conceptual draft: `SoulFrameIntroduction.md` +Research agenda: `ResearchProgram.md` (from `history/260809-SoulFrameResearchProgram.md`) + +## Depends on + +- None (founding workplan) + +## Parallel / follow-on + +- **SOUL-WP-0002** — Phase I Foundations (starts after instruments exist) +- Later phases remain proposed until prior phase synthesis is sufficient + +## Tasks + +### T01 — Repository structure per research program + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0001-T01 +status: done +priority: high +``` + +Create the layout from `ResearchProgram.md` §10: + +- Root instruments: Terminology, Claims, OpenQuestions, ThoughtExperiments +- `research/` workstream directories +- `sources/`, `concepts/`, `paper/` +- Seed concept stubs and instrument templates + +**Done when:** tree matches the proposed research repository layout. + +--- + +### T02 — INTENT.md and SCOPE.md + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0001-T02 +status: done +priority: high +``` + +Write standing purpose (`INTENT.md`) and operational boundaries (`SCOPE.md`) +aligned with the research stance (systems framework, not consciousness theory). + +**Done when:** both files exist and are linked from `README.md`. + +--- + +### T03 — Phase workplans for the research sequence + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0001-T03 +status: done +priority: high +``` + +Author workplans SOUL-WP-0002 through SOUL-WP-0008 covering research phases +I–VII from `ResearchProgram.md` §11, with tasks, dependencies, and priorities. + +**Done when:** phase workplan files exist under `workplans/`. + +--- + +### T04 — Register repo with State Hub + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0001-T04 +status: done +priority: high +``` + +Register `soul-frame` under domain `agents` (classification in +`.repo-classification.yaml`), host path, agent instruction stubs as needed. + +**Done when:** `GET /repos/soul-frame` succeeds with local path on this host. + +--- + +### T05 — fix-consistency write-back of hub IDs + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0001-T05 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Commit workplans, run `make fix-consistency REPO=soul-frame` so C-06 creates +workstreams and writes `state_hub_workstream_id` / task IDs into files. + +**Done when:** each SOUL-WP file has hub IDs; consistency check is clean or +warnings-only. + +--- + +### T06 — README orientation for operators + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0001-T06 +status: done +priority: medium +``` + +README documents start-here docs, layout, and research phase summary. + +**Done when:** new operator can navigate INTENT → ResearchProgram → workplans +without tribal knowledge. diff --git a/workplans/SOUL-WP-0002-phase-i-foundations.md b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0002-phase-i-foundations.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f79bc74 --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0002-phase-i-foundations.md @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +--- +id: SOUL-WP-0002 +type: workplan +title: "Phase I — Foundations: systems, cybernetics, mind, identity" +domain: agents +repo: soul-frame +status: ready +owner: grok +topic_slug: soul-frame +priority: high +created: "2026-08-09" +updated: "2026-08-09" +depends_on: + - SOUL-WP-0001 +--- + +# SOUL-WP-0002 — Phase I Foundations + +## Goal + +Stress-test **Being, Body, Mind, Soul, closure, and continuity** against systems +theory, cybernetics, autopoiesis, philosophy of mind, and personal identity. + +Research dirs: `research/systems-theory/`, `research/cybernetics/`, +`research/philosophy-of-mind/`, `research/personal-identity/`. + +## Depends on + +- **SOUL-WP-0001** (repository instruments exist) + +## Follow-on + +- **SOUL-WP-0003** — Phase II Interaction + +## Tasks + +### T01 — Terminology reconnaissance for core triad + Being + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0002-T01 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +For Being, Body, Mind, Soul, identity, consciousness: establish meanings, +conflicts, adjacent terms, disciplinary differences; update `Terminology.md` +and concept notes. + +**Done when:** each term has reconnaissance notes and status in Terminology. + +--- + +### T02 — Systems theory & cybernetics source map + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0002-T02 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Map foundational sources (Bertalanffy, Wiener, Ashby, Beer, von Foerster, +Maturana/Varela, Luhmann, etc.) into `sources/bibliography.md` and workstream +notes. Focus: closure, boundary, environment, observer-relative identification. + +**Done when:** ≥5 foundational entries annotated against the concept matrix. + +--- + +### T03 — Philosophy of mind & personal identity map + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0002-T03 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Map functionalism, computationalism, embodied mind, psychological/narrative +continuity, extended mind. Record agreements/disagreements with Soul Frame's +consciousness distinction (first-person vs third-person recognition). + +**Done when:** bibliography + source notes cover both clusters; open questions updated. + +--- + +### T04 — Claim ledger pass for H1, H3, H5, H6 + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0002-T04 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Fill supporting/contradicting literature and evidence strength for hypotheses +H1 (multidimensional beinghood), H3 (model-based mind), H5 (relational soul), +H6 (substrate-independent identity) in `Claims.md`. + +**Done when:** those claims are no longer `Evidence strength: none`. + +--- + +### T05 — Run foundation thought experiments + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0002-T05 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Working judgments for TE-01 (Stateless Agent), TE-02 (Sleeping Being), +TE-03 (Fork), TE-04 (Ship of Theseus), TE-05 (Collective) in +`ThoughtExperiments.md`, refining concept definitions where they break. + +**Done when:** each TE has a working judgment or explicit blocked open issue. + +--- + +### T06 — Phase I synthesis note + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0002-T06 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Write `research/phase-i-foundations-synthesis.md`: what holds, what must change, +terminology survivors vs rename candidates (especially Soul). + +**Done when:** synthesis note exists and SOUL-WP-0003 is unblocked on substance. diff --git a/workplans/SOUL-WP-0003-phase-ii-interaction.md b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0003-phase-ii-interaction.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b8aa2ae --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0003-phase-ii-interaction.md @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +--- +id: SOUL-WP-0003 +type: workplan +title: "Phase II — Interaction: social cognition and recognition" +domain: agents +repo: soul-frame +status: proposed +owner: grok +topic_slug: soul-frame +priority: medium +created: "2026-08-09" +updated: "2026-08-09" +depends_on: + - SOUL-WP-0002 +--- + +# SOUL-WP-0003 — Phase II Interaction + +## Goal + +Ground **co-adaptive model building** and **social Beinghood** in cognitive +science, theory of mind, social cognition, sociology, recognition, and +intersubjectivity. + +Research dirs: `research/cognitive-science/`, `research/social-cognition/`, +`research/sociology/`. + +## Depends on + +- **SOUL-WP-0002** Phase I synthesis + +## Tasks + +### T01 — Cognitive science & model-based mind map + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0003-T01 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Map predictive processing, active inference, internal models, metacognition +against Mind definition. Update concept notes and bibliography. + +**Done when:** Mind crosswalk has ≥4 rigorous sources with agreements/tensions. + +--- + +### T02 — Social cognition & co-adaptation map + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0003-T02 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Map theory of mind, joint attention, shared intentionality, interactive +alignment, common ground, recursive modeling. Test H4. + +**Done when:** H4 has literature support/conflict notes; TE-related social cases refined. + +--- + +### T03 — Sociology & recognition map + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0003-T03 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Map recognition theory, symbolic interactionism, intersubjectivity, reputation, +trust. Clarify systemic existence vs social recognition (H7, TE-09). + +**Done when:** `concepts/recognition.md` updated; H7 evidence strength ≠ none. + +--- + +### T04 — Phase II synthesis note + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0003-T04 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Write `research/phase-ii-interaction-synthesis.md` and revise OpenQuestions RQ3/RQ6. + +**Done when:** synthesis exists; personhood phase can start from a stable social base. diff --git a/workplans/SOUL-WP-0004-phase-iii-personhood.md b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0004-phase-iii-personhood.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6d5d428 --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0004-phase-iii-personhood.md @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ +--- +id: SOUL-WP-0004 +type: workplan +title: "Phase III — Personhood: person, character, persona" +domain: agents +repo: soul-frame +status: proposed +owner: grok +topic_slug: soul-frame +priority: medium +created: "2026-08-09" +updated: "2026-08-09" +depends_on: + - SOUL-WP-0003 +--- + +# SOUL-WP-0004 — Phase III Personhood + +## Goal + +Separate **Being, Person, Character, Persona, and Actor**. Map descriptive vs +social vs moral vs legal personhood without conflating them. + +Research dirs: `research/personhood/`, `research/character-persona/`. + +## Depends on + +- **SOUL-WP-0003** + +## Tasks + +### T01 — Personhood dimensions literature map + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0004-T01 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Populate descriptive/social/moral/legal distinctions with sources; stress-test +APE vs Being; update H2. + +**Done when:** `concepts/personhood.md` has a sourced dimension list. + +--- + +### T02 — Character / persona / performance map + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0004-T02 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Map personality psychology, role theory, narratology, performance/avatar studies +against Character and Persona. Run TE-06 (The Mask). + +**Done when:** stack Being ≠ Persona ≠ Character ≠ Actor has sourced defenses. + +--- + +### T03 — Phase III synthesis note + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0004-T03 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Write `research/phase-iii-personhood-synthesis.md`. + +**Done when:** synthesis exists; Artificial Beings phase can reuse the separations. diff --git a/workplans/SOUL-WP-0005-phase-iv-artificial-beings.md b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0005-phase-iv-artificial-beings.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f54244a --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0005-phase-iv-artificial-beings.md @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ +--- +id: SOUL-WP-0005 +type: workplan +title: "Phase IV — Artificial Beings: agents and persistent identity" +domain: agents +repo: soul-frame +status: proposed +owner: grok +topic_slug: soul-frame +priority: medium +created: "2026-08-09" +updated: "2026-08-09" +depends_on: + - SOUL-WP-0004 +--- + +# SOUL-WP-0005 — Phase IV Artificial Beings + +## Goal + +Map Soul Frame onto contemporary artificial systems: autonomous/LLM agents, +generative agents, companions, digital humans, memory architectures, persistent +identity. + +Research dirs: `research/ai-agents/`, `research/artificial-persons/`. + +## Depends on + +- **SOUL-WP-0004** + +## Tasks + +### T01 — Agent architecture crosswalk + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0005-T01 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Map agent frameworks and generative-agent literature to Body/Mind/Soul/Actor/ +Persona. Note where actor, persona, and identity are confused. + +**Done when:** crosswalk table exists in research notes + bibliography entries. + +--- + +### T02 — Persistence & memory architectures + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0005-T02 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Survey memory/identity mechanisms in persistent agents; link to continuity +criteria and WS10 themes (when memory becomes continuity). + +**Done when:** open questions on memory/continuity updated with technical cases. + +--- + +### T03 — Catalog approximate Beings + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0005-T03 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Short catalog of current systems approximating Beings vs mere task executors, +using Phase I–III criteria. + +**Done when:** catalog note under `research/ai-agents/` with explicit criteria used. + +--- + +### T04 — Phase IV synthesis note + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0005-T04 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Write `research/phase-iv-artificial-beings-synthesis.md`. + +**Done when:** Spirits/Ghosts phase can assume agent/Being vocabulary is mapped. diff --git a/workplans/SOUL-WP-0006-phase-v-spirits-and-ghosts.md b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0006-phase-v-spirits-and-ghosts.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c8183d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0006-phase-v-spirits-and-ghosts.md @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +--- +id: SOUL-WP-0006 +type: workplan +title: "Phase V — Spirits and Ghosts: simulation, legacy, authority" +domain: agents +repo: soul-frame +status: proposed +owner: grok +topic_slug: soul-frame +priority: medium +created: "2026-08-09" +updated: "2026-08-09" +depends_on: + - SOUL-WP-0005 +--- + +# SOUL-WP-0006 — Phase V Spirits and Ghosts + +## Goal + +Establish rigorous definitions for **Spirit (`Sp.`)** and **Ghost (`Gh.`)**: +public personality simulation vs identity-authorized continuation, digital +legacy, consent, personality rights, governance. + +Research dirs: `research/spirits/`, `research/ghosts-digital-legacy/`, +`research/law-governance/` (as needed for Gh.). + +## Depends on + +- **SOUL-WP-0005** + +## Tasks + +### T01 — Spirit criteria and cultural representation map + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0006-T01 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Sources on historical simulation, fictional character agents, synthetic media, +provenance, fidelity. Formalize evaluation dimensions for `Sp.`. + +**Done when:** `concepts/spirit.md` evaluation dimensions are sourced. + +--- + +### T02 — Ghost, digital legacy, and authority map + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0006-T02 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Map digital remains, posthumous privacy, grief tech, consent, succession, +fiduciary stewardship. Test H10 and TE-07 (False Ghost). + +**Done when:** H10 evidence notes filled; Ghost governance candidates refined. + +--- + +### T03 — Law/governance gap sketch for Sp./Gh. + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0006-T03 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Map Soul Frame concepts → existing legal categories → gaps (publicity rights, +personality rights, data protection, estates). No premature legal conclusions. + +**Done when:** gap sketch in `research/law-governance/`. + +--- + +### T04 — Phase V synthesis note + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0006-T04 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Write `research/phase-v-spirits-ghosts-synthesis.md`. Confirm H9 (provenance +descriptors vs exclusive kinds). + +**Done when:** synthesis exists; synthesis phase can freeze Sp./Gh. working defs. diff --git a/workplans/SOUL-WP-0007-phase-vi-synthesis.md b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0007-phase-vi-synthesis.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..95800f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0007-phase-vi-synthesis.md @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ +--- +id: SOUL-WP-0007 +type: workplan +title: "Phase VI — Synthesis: crosswalk, evidence, revised ontology" +domain: agents +repo: soul-frame +status: proposed +owner: grok +topic_slug: soul-frame +priority: medium +created: "2026-08-09" +updated: "2026-08-09" +depends_on: + - SOUL-WP-0006 +--- + +# SOUL-WP-0007 — Phase VI Synthesis + +## Goal + +Integrate workstream results into: + +- concept crosswalk +- evidence register (mature Claims) +- revised ontology / terminology standard +- research synthesis document +- fiction/cultural precedents scan as conceptual laboratory (not evidence) + +Also cover remaining WS11 death/legacy and WS13 fiction clusters as needed. + +## Depends on + +- **SOUL-WP-0006** (and earlier phases' synthesis notes) + +## Tasks + +### T01 — Full concept crosswalk + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0007-T01 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +For each matrix concept in `ResearchProgram.md` §5, complete adjacent-term +crosswalks in `concepts/` (or a consolidated `research/concept-crosswalk.md`). + +**Done when:** every core concept has filled similarity/difference rows. + +--- + +### T02 — Claims & open questions consolidation + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0007-T02 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Advance H1–H10 statuses; retire or revise failed concepts; clean +`OpenQuestions.md`. + +**Done when:** no important claim remains without literature notes; revisions logged. + +--- + +### T03 — Fiction & cultural precedents scan + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0007-T03 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Comparative notes (e.g. Culture Minds and peers) under +`research/fiction-cultural-precedents/` for conceptual experiments and failure +modes only. + +**Done when:** short comparative note exists; no fiction treated as empirical proof. + +--- + +### T04 — Research synthesis document + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0007-T04 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Produce `research/research-synthesis.md` integrating phases I–V and this phase. + +**Done when:** synthesis is paper-ready as input to SOUL-WP-0008. diff --git a/workplans/SOUL-WP-0008-phase-vii-paper.md b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0008-phase-vii-paper.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8ce96c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/SOUL-WP-0008-phase-vii-paper.md @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +--- +id: SOUL-WP-0008 +type: workplan +title: "Phase VII — Soul Frame research paper" +domain: agents +repo: soul-frame +status: proposed +owner: grok +topic_slug: soul-frame +priority: low +created: "2026-08-09" +updated: "2026-08-09" +depends_on: + - SOUL-WP-0007 +--- + +# SOUL-WP-0008 — Phase VII Paper + +## Goal + +Write the first **research-grounded** Soul Frame paper using the outline in +`paper/outline.md` and synthesis from SOUL-WP-0007. + +## Depends on + +- **SOUL-WP-0007** research synthesis + +## Tasks + +### T01 — Related work section draft + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0008-T01 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Expand `paper/related-work.md` from bibliography and crosswalks. + +**Done when:** related-work draft covers all major traditions used in synthesis. + +--- + +### T02 — Full paper draft + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0008-T02 +status: todo +priority: high +``` + +Draft `paper/draft.md` following the research-program outline (Being through +limitations and agenda). Replace provisional intro claims with sourced ones. + +**Done when:** complete draft exists with claim→literature traceability. + +--- + +### T03 — Internal adversarial review + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0008-T03 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Re-run thought experiments against paper definitions; fix circular or collapsing +terms; document limitations honestly. + +**Done when:** review notes filed; draft revised or issues logged as open questions. + +--- + +### T04 — Paper freeze candidate + +```task +id: SOUL-WP-0008-T04 +status: todo +priority: medium +``` + +Mark a freeze candidate version (date + git tag or history snapshot) suitable for +external review or publication pathway decision. + +**Done when:** freeze artifact recorded under `history/` or tagged release notes.