coulomb/soul-frame
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
soul-frame/research/foundations/References-ResearchNote006.md
tegwick 3fbcca209d Complete Phase I foundations (SOUL-WP-0002) 
Integrate research/foundations notes 001–005 into Terminology, Claims,
bibliography, concept notes, thought experiments, and open questions. Write
phase-i-foundations-synthesis.md, finish SOUL-WP-0002, and mark SOUL-WP-0003
ready for interaction research.
2026-08-12 00:55:09 +02:00

18 KiB
Executable file
Raw Permalink Blame History

References — Research Note 006

Cluster C: Social Mind and Co-Adaptive Model Building

This bibliography supports Research Note 006 — Social Mind and Co-Adaptive Model Building.

It covers the main research traditions used to develop the Soul Frame concepts of:

  • Other-Model
  • Reflected-Self Model
  • Relationship Model
  • Shared Situation Model
  • Common-Ground Model
  • Generalized Social Model
  • recursive social modeling
  • participatory sense-making
  • mutual recognition
  • and Co-Adaptive Model Building

The numbering continues the Soul Frame research bibliography.

SF-R057 — Premack, David, and Guy Woodruff. 1978.

“Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind?”
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1(4): 515–526.

DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00076512

Soul Frame relevance

  • theory of mind
  • attribution of mental states
  • beliefs
  • intentions
  • goals
  • knowledge
  • other-modeling
  • perspective separation

This paper is a foundational source for the modern theory-of-mind research tradition.

Soul Frame connection

It provides a clear precedent for the Other-Model:

a model through which one Being attributes action-relevant internal states to another Being in order to understand or predict behavior.

Soul Frame generalizes this beyond beliefs and intentions to include:

  • character,
  • capabilities,
  • preferences,
  • uncertainty,
  • relationship state,
  • and context.

SF-R058 — Mead, George Herbert. 1934.

Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist.
Edited by Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Soul Frame relevance

  • social formation of Mind
  • taking the attitude of the other
  • reflexivity
  • self-model
  • social self
  • generalized other
  • community expectations

Soul Frame connection

Mead provides one of the strongest historical precedents for the proposition that a Self-Model is partly shaped by models of how others respond to and understand the self.

This supports the Soul Frame concept of the:

Reflected-Self Model

and motivates the Generalized Social Model for expectations associated with groups, institutions, communities, and roles.

SF-R059 — Clark, Herbert H., and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986.

“Referring as a Collaborative Process.”
Cognition 22(1): 1–39.

DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7

Soul Frame relevance

  • collaborative communication
  • grounding
  • shared reference
  • common ground
  • interaction history
  • conventions

Soul Frame connection

The paper demonstrates that successful reference in dialogue is collaboratively established rather than fully specified by one participant and passively decoded by another.

This provides an important precedent for:

Common Ground as a co-constructed interactional achievement.

SF-R060 — Clark, Herbert H., and Susan E. Brennan. 1991.

“Grounding in Communication.”
In Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley, eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, pp. 127–149. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

DOI: 10.1037/10096-006

Soul Frame relevance

  • grounding
  • common ground
  • evidence of understanding
  • collaborative communication
  • repair
  • coordination costs

Soul Frame connection

Clark and Brennan provide the central precedent for Soul Frame's Common-Ground Model and for treating grounding as an active loop:

proposal
   ↓
interpretation
   ↓
evidence of understanding
   ↓
confirmation / correction
   ↓
common-ground update

SF-R061 — Pickering, Martin J., and Simon Garrod. 2004.

“Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue.”
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(2): 169–190.

DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056

Soul Frame relevance

  • interactive alignment
  • dialogue
  • linguistic coordination
  • reciprocal adaptation
  • shared representations

Soul Frame connection

Interactive alignment provides a strong mechanism-level precedent for part of Co-Adaptive Model Building.

Soul Frame is intentionally broader:

[ CoAdaptation \not\Rightarrow Alignment ]

because Beings may co-adapt through:

  • disagreement,
  • competition,
  • conflict,
  • deception,
  • negotiation,
  • or role differentiation.

SF-R062 — Tomasello, Michael, Malinda Carpenter, Josep Call, Tanya Behne, and Henrike Moll. 2005.

“Understanding and Sharing Intentions: The Origins of Cultural Cognition.”
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28(5): 675–691.

DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X05000129

Soul Frame relevance

  • shared intentionality
  • joint attention
  • collaborative activity
  • cultural cognition
  • common ground
  • joint goals

Soul Frame connection

This source helps distinguish:

  • coordination,
  • common ground,
  • joint action,
  • and shared intention.

Soul Frame treats shared intentionality as one important configuration of Social Mind rather than the foundation of all social cognition.

SF-R063 — Sebanz, Natalie, Harold Bekkering, and Günther Knoblich. 2006.

“Joint Action: Bodies and Minds Moving Together.”
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(2): 70–76.

DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009

Soul Frame relevance

  • joint action
  • coordination
  • action prediction
  • timing
  • representation of others' actions
  • shared tasks

Soul Frame connection

This work motivates the Shared Situation Model:

a model of the situation in which several Beings jointly participate, including roles, timing, actions, constraints, and expected outcomes.

The Shared Situation Model is distinct from an Other-Model.

SF-R064 — De Jaegher, Hanne, and Ezequiel A. Di Paolo. 2007.

“Participatory Sense-Making: An Enactive Approach to Social Cognition.”
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6(4): 485–507.

DOI: 10.1007/s11097-007-9076-9

Soul Frame relevance

  • participatory sense-making
  • interaction autonomy
  • coordination
  • enactive social cognition
  • meaning generation
  • interaction process

Soul Frame connection

This is one of the most important Cluster C sources.

It challenges a purely observer-centered model in which A privately infers B's hidden states and instead makes the interaction process itself explanatorily relevant.

This strongly motivates:

Interaction(A,B) as a first-class Soul Frame object.

SF-R065 — De Jaegher, Hanne, Ezequiel A. Di Paolo, and Shaun Gallagher. 2010.

“Can Social Interaction Constitute Social Cognition?”
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(10): 441–447.

DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.009

Soul Frame relevance

  • interactionist social cognition
  • constitutive social interaction
  • embodied coordination
  • limits of pure mindreading models

Soul Frame connection

This paper supports the Cluster C refinement:

Social Mind should not be reduced to private inference about hidden mental states.

Interaction itself can carry cognitive work and change what each participant is able to understand.

SF-R066 — Baker, Chris L., Rebecca Saxe, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2009.

“Action Understanding as Inverse Planning.”
Cognition 113(3): 329–349.

DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.07.005

Soul Frame relevance

  • inverse planning
  • Bayesian theory of mind
  • goal inference
  • belief inference
  • prediction of action

Soul Frame connection

This provides a computational formulation of the Other-Model:

beliefs + goals
      ↓
   planning
      ↓
    action

with the observer attempting the inverse:

observed action
      ↓
infer beliefs + goals

Soul Frame treats inverse planning as one mechanism of social modeling, not as a complete theory of Social Mind.

SF-R067 — Gmytrasiewicz, Piotr J., and Prashant Doshi. 2005.

“A Framework for Sequential Planning in Multi-Agent Settings.”
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 24: 49–79.

DOI: 10.1613/JAIR.1579

Soul Frame relevance

  • I-POMDPs
  • recursive beliefs
  • nested agent models
  • decision-making under uncertainty
  • multi-agent planning

Soul Frame connection

Interactive POMDPs provide a formal precedent for:

A models B

A models B's model of A

A models B's model
  of A's model of B

They also expose the computational limits of unrestricted recursive modeling.

This supports:

recursive model depth should be bounded and context-dependent.

SF-R068 — Bratman, Michael E. 1992.

“Shared Cooperative Activity.”
The Philosophical Review 101(2): 327–341.

DOI: 10.2307/2185537

Soul Frame relevance

  • shared cooperative activity
  • mutual responsiveness
  • joint intention
  • compatible subplans
  • commitment

Soul Frame connection

Bratman helps distinguish:

mere coordination

from:

cooperative activity organized around shared intention and reciprocal responsiveness.

Soul Frame retains the broader category of Co-Adaptive Model Building because social interaction also includes non-cooperative modes.

SF-R069 — Schilbach, Leonhard, Bert Timmermans, Vasudevi Reddy, Alan Costall, Gary Bente, Tobias Schlicht, and Kai Vogeley. 2013.

“Toward a Second-Person Neuroscience.”
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4): 393–414.

DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X12000660

Soul Frame relevance

  • second-person cognition
  • direct engagement
  • real-time interaction
  • social neuroscience
  • distinction between observing and interacting

Soul Frame connection

This work supports the view that:

being engaged with another Being is cognitively different from merely observing that Being.

It strengthens the case for treating real-time interaction as a constitutive input to Social Mind.

SF-R070 — Fiske, Alan P. 1992.

“The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality: Framework for a Unified Theory of Social Relations.”
Psychological Review 99(4): 689–723.

DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689

Soul Frame relevance

  • relationship schemas
  • social coordination
  • communal sharing
  • authority ranking
  • equality matching
  • market pricing

Soul Frame connection

Soul Frame does not currently adopt Fiske's four categories as canonical.

The important precedent is:

Beings model not only properties of other individuals but the relational structure organizing their interaction.

This supports the first-class Relationship Model.

SF-R071 — Rabinowitz, Neil C., Frank Perbet, H. Francis Song, Chiyuan Zhang, S. M. Ali Eslami, and Matthew Botvinick. 2018.

“Machine Theory of Mind.”
In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2018).

arXiv:1802.07740

Soul Frame relevance

  • machine theory of mind
  • learned models of other agents
  • latent character inference
  • behavioral prediction
  • artificial other-modeling

Soul Frame connection

ToMnet demonstrates that machine systems can learn predictive representations of other artificial agents from observed behavior.

This is an important technical precedent for treating Other-Model Quality as a capability distinct from general language competence.

SF-R072 — Shum, Michael, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Michael L. Littman, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2019.

“Theory of Minds: Understanding Behavior in Groups Through Inverse Planning.”
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 33(1): 6163–6170.

DOI: 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33016163

Soul Frame relevance

  • group behavior
  • latent relationships
  • social structure inference
  • inverse planning
  • multi-agent modeling

Soul Frame connection

This work provides a computational precedent for inferring not only individual goals but relationships among interacting agents.

It supports the Soul Frame distinction:

[ OtherModel \neq RelationshipModel ]

Source-to-Claim Map

Soul Frame claim Principal references
Other-modeling is a distinct social-cognitive capability SF-R057, SF-R066, SF-R071
Mental-state attribution can support behavior prediction SF-R057, SF-R066
Recursive models of other agents can be formalized SF-R067
Recursive social modeling must be practically bounded SF-R067
Self-models can be shaped by models of others' attitudes SF-R058
Community expectations can become part of self-related cognition SF-R058
Communication establishes common ground collaboratively SF-R059, SF-R060
Grounding is an active process of evidence and repair SF-R060
Dialogue can produce multi-level alignment SF-R061
Alignment is one result of interaction, not equivalent to all co-adaptation SF-R061 plus Soul Frame synthesis
Joint action requires modeling shared tasks and other participants SF-R063
Shared intentionality is stronger than simple coordination SF-R062, SF-R068
Interaction itself can contribute constitutively to social cognition SF-R064, SF-R065, SF-R069
Social Mind should not be reduced to private mindreading SF-R064, SF-R065, SF-R069
Relationships require models distinct from models of individuals SF-R070, SF-R072
Latent relationship structures can be computationally inferred SF-R072
Artificial systems can learn predictive models of other agents SF-R071
Common ground does not require identical private representations SF-R059, SF-R060
Social interaction may create persistent conventions SF-R059, SF-R060
Co-adaptation can include competitive as well as cooperative interaction SF-R067, SF-R068 plus Soul Frame synthesis
Interaction should be represented as a first-class state-bearing process SF-R064, SF-R065 plus Soul Frame synthesis

Research Traditions Crosswalk

Soul Frame concept Research tradition Key sources
Other-Model Theory of Mind SF-R057
Other-Model Bayesian inverse planning SF-R066
Machine Other-Model Machine Theory of Mind SF-R071
Recursive Other-Model I-POMDP / recursive agents SF-R067
Reflected-Self Model Symbolic interactionism SF-R058
Generalized Social Model Mead's generalized other SF-R058
Common-Ground Model Collaborative communication SF-R059, SF-R060
Interaction Adaptivity Interactive alignment SF-R061
Shared Situation Model Joint action SF-R063
Shared Intention Shared intentionality / joint activity SF-R062, SF-R068
Interaction Process Participatory sense-making SF-R064, SF-R065
Second-person engagement Second-person neuroscience SF-R069
Relationship Model Relational-model theory SF-R070
Relationship inference Computational social cognition SF-R072

Core Reading Set for Cluster C

For a compact canonical Cluster C foundation, prioritize these nine sources:

  1. Premack & Woodruff (1978) — Theory of Mind
  2. Mead (1934) — Mind, Self, and Society
  3. Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs (1986) — Collaborative reference
  4. Clark & Brennan (1991) — Grounding and common ground
  5. Pickering & Garrod (2004) — Interactive alignment
  6. De Jaegher & Di Paolo (2007) — Participatory sense-making
  7. Baker, Saxe & Tenenbaum (2009) — Inverse planning
  8. Gmytrasiewicz & Doshi (2005) — Recursive agent modeling
  9. Schilbach et al. (2013) — Second-person cognition

Together they establish the conceptual path:

other-model
    ↓
reflected self
    ↓
recursive modeling
    ↓
grounding
    ↓
alignment
    ↓
interaction dynamics
    ↓
second-person engagement
    ↓
co-adaptive model building

Tomasello, Sebanz et al., Bratman, Fiske, Rabinowitz et al., and Shum et al. then deepen the shared-intention, joint-action, relationship, and artificial-agent branches.

Epistemic Classification

Foundational / established primary works

  • SF-R057 Premack & Woodruff
  • SF-R058 Mead
  • SF-R059 Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs
  • SF-R060 Clark & Brennan
  • SF-R061 Pickering & Garrod
  • SF-R062 Tomasello et al.
  • SF-R063 Sebanz et al.
  • SF-R064 De Jaegher & Di Paolo
  • SF-R065 De Jaegher, Di Paolo & Gallagher
  • SF-R066 Baker, Saxe & Tenenbaum
  • SF-R067 Gmytrasiewicz & Doshi
  • SF-R068 Bratman
  • SF-R069 Schilbach et al.
  • SF-R070 Fiske

Established technical / computational precedents

  • SF-R071 Rabinowitz et al.
  • SF-R072 Shum et al.

These technical sources demonstrate implementable forms of other-modeling and relationship inference but should not be treated as complete theories of human or artificial Social Mind.

Terminological Lessons for Soul Frame

The literature supports keeping the following structures distinct:

SELF MODEL
what A represents about A

OTHER MODEL
what A represents about B

REFLECTED-SELF MODEL
what A represents about B's model of A

RELATIONSHIP MODEL
what A represents about A↔B

SHARED SITUATION MODEL
what A represents about the situation involving A and B

COMMON-GROUND MODEL
what A treats as sufficiently mutually established

GENERALIZED SOCIAL MODEL
what A represents about group, role, institutional, or cultural expectations

INTERACTION PROCESS
the dynamic sequence through which A and B mutually alter one another

These distinctions are central to the Soul Frame definition of Social Mind.

Working Definition Supported by Cluster C

Social Mind is the capacity of a Mind to participate in co-adaptive interaction by maintaining and revising differentiated models of self, other Beings, relationships, and shared situations—including, where useful, models of how other Beings model itself—and by using interaction itself as a source and medium of model formation.

And:

Co-Adaptive Model Building is the recurrent interaction process through which Beings mutually influence and revise action-guiding models of self, other, relationship, and shared situation, while those models shape actions that alter both the interaction and the evidence available for subsequent modeling.

These are Soul Frame syntheses built from the preceding research traditions rather than definitions adopted from any single source.

Research Status

Cluster C currently supports three particularly important conclusions:

  1. Other-modeling is necessary but insufficient for mature Social Mind.
  2. Interaction itself must be treated as cognitively and relationally significant.
  3. Relationship and common-ground models are distinct from models of individual Beings.

These conclusions should next be adversarially tested before the candidate dimensions are promoted into SocialMindCriteriaV0.1.md.