906 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
Executable file
906 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
Executable file
# Autonomous Individuality Criteria v0.1
|
|
|
|
**Status:** Active research standard
|
|
**Origin:** Soul Frame — Cluster A: Autonomy and Individuation
|
|
**Derived from:** `BeingCriteriaV0.1.md`
|
|
**Validated by:** Research Note 003 — Beinghood Stress Test
|
|
**Scope:** Individuation and constitutive autonomy, not complete Beinghood
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 1. Purpose
|
|
|
|
The **Autonomous Individuality Criteria v0.1** provide a multidimensional framework for evaluating whether an informational, biological, technical, or collective system constitutes a coherent individual whose own operations participate in maintaining and regulating its continued organization.
|
|
|
|
The criteria intentionally do **not** determine whether the system is:
|
|
|
|
- a person,
|
|
- conscious,
|
|
- a Soul Frame Being,
|
|
- morally considerable,
|
|
- legally recognized,
|
|
- socially recognized,
|
|
- or linguistically sophisticated.
|
|
|
|
Their purpose is narrower:
|
|
|
|
> **How strongly is there an integrated, self-maintaining individual process here?**
|
|
|
|
This distinction emerged from adversarial testing of the original `BeingCriteriaV0.1.md`.
|
|
|
|
Systems such as:
|
|
|
|
- a self-maintaining daemon,
|
|
- a Kubernetes-like control system,
|
|
- an ant colony,
|
|
- or an organization
|
|
|
|
may exhibit substantial autonomous individuality without necessarily exhibiting strong personhood.
|
|
|
|
Conversely, a stateless chatbot may expose substantial person-like behavior while exhibiting little autonomous individuality.
|
|
|
|
Therefore:
|
|
|
|
\[
|
|
AutonomousIndividuality \neq Personhood
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
and:
|
|
|
|
\[
|
|
AutonomousIndividuality \neq Beinghood
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 2. Working definition
|
|
|
|
> **An autonomous individual is an individuated process that preserves temporal integrity through an integrated organization whose own activity materially contributes to maintaining and adaptively regulating the conditions of its continued identity.**
|
|
|
|
This definition is intended to be substrate-neutral.
|
|
|
|
It may apply, in different degrees and forms, to:
|
|
|
|
- organisms,
|
|
- artificial systems,
|
|
- distributed systems,
|
|
- collectives,
|
|
- organizations,
|
|
- and hypothetical non-human or alien systems.
|
|
|
|
The criteria do not assume that individuality must correspond to:
|
|
|
|
- one physical body,
|
|
- one processor,
|
|
- one legal entity,
|
|
- one location,
|
|
- or one scale of organization.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 3. Conceptual foundations
|
|
|
|
The criteria synthesize ideas from research on:
|
|
|
|
- autopoiesis,
|
|
- biological autonomy,
|
|
- organizational closure,
|
|
- adaptivity,
|
|
- normativity,
|
|
- agency,
|
|
- process ontology,
|
|
- immunological individuation,
|
|
- information-theoretic individuality,
|
|
- and formal system/environment boundaries.
|
|
|
|
Soul Frame does **not** claim that artificial autonomous individuals are biologically autopoietic.
|
|
|
|
Instead, the framework extracts more general questions:
|
|
|
|
- What makes a process one individual?
|
|
- How does it persist?
|
|
- What organizational relations constitute it?
|
|
- To what extent does it participate in maintaining itself?
|
|
- What conditions matter to its continued identity?
|
|
- How does it adapt?
|
|
- To what extent is it an active source of interaction?
|
|
- How can it change while remaining itself?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 4. Evaluation dimensions
|
|
|
|
The framework contains eight dimensions:
|
|
|
|
\[
|
|
AI = (I, T, C, S, V, A, X, P)
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
where:
|
|
|
|
| Code | Dimension |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| `I` | Individuability |
|
|
| `T` | Temporal Integrity |
|
|
| `C` | Constitutive Integration |
|
|
| `S` | Self-Maintenance Participation |
|
|
| `V` | Endogenous Viability |
|
|
| `A` | Adaptive Regulation |
|
|
| `X` | Interactional Asymmetry |
|
|
| `P` | Identity-Preserving Transformation |
|
|
|
|
The symbol `AI` here means **Autonomous Individuality**, not Artificial Intelligence.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 5. AI-1 — Individuability
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
There must be defensible grounds for distinguishing the candidate system from its environment as one coherent process.
|
|
|
|
The relevant boundary may be:
|
|
|
|
- physical,
|
|
- informational,
|
|
- causal,
|
|
- operational,
|
|
- organizational,
|
|
- social,
|
|
- or hybrid.
|
|
|
|
It need not be perfectly sharp.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Can states and processes meaningfully be attributed to this system rather than its environment?
|
|
- Is there a defensible reason to treat these components and processes as one unit?
|
|
- Does the proposed boundary correspond to persistent causal, informational, or organizational structure?
|
|
- Does the system retain recognizable individuality despite ordinary environmental exchange?
|
|
- Are competing boundary definitions substantially weaker or merely alternative useful scales?
|
|
|
|
## Strong evidence
|
|
|
|
Examples may include:
|
|
|
|
- persistent organization,
|
|
- coherent causal closure at a useful analytical scale,
|
|
- stable system/environment distinctions,
|
|
- recurring self-produced boundaries,
|
|
- temporal information concentrated within the candidate system.
|
|
|
|
## Weak evidence
|
|
|
|
Examples include:
|
|
|
|
- arbitrary aggregation,
|
|
- co-location without integration,
|
|
- temporary correlation,
|
|
- purely observer-imposed grouping.
|
|
|
|
## Research caution
|
|
|
|
Individuation may be:
|
|
|
|
- graded,
|
|
- nested,
|
|
- distributed,
|
|
- and observer-relative without being arbitrary.
|
|
|
|
A defensible boundary is necessary for autonomous individuality but not sufficient.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 6. AI-2 — Temporal Integrity
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The candidate system must exhibit meaningful diachronic continuity.
|
|
|
|
Its present and future organization should depend substantially on its own previous organization.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Does the system carry forward information from its own history?
|
|
- Does its past causally constrain its future?
|
|
- Would removing system-specific history materially change the entity?
|
|
- Does continuity survive normal internal turnover?
|
|
- Is the candidate reconstructed externally from scratch, or does it genuinely continue?
|
|
|
|
## Strong evidence
|
|
|
|
- persistent internal state,
|
|
- historical dependencies,
|
|
- accumulated adaptations,
|
|
- retained organizational structures,
|
|
- continuity through component turnover.
|
|
|
|
## Weak evidence
|
|
|
|
- generic reconstruction from a template,
|
|
- independent stateless invocations,
|
|
- identical outputs without causal continuity.
|
|
|
|
## Interpretation
|
|
|
|
Temporal Integrity distinguishes:
|
|
|
|
> **continued existence**
|
|
|
|
from:
|
|
|
|
> **repeated recreation of similar instances.**
|
|
|
|
This becomes particularly important for artificial systems.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 7. AI-3 — Constitutive Integration
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The processes attributed to the individual must form an integrated organization through which the continued system is realized.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Do components mutually constrain or enable one another?
|
|
- Do components participate in feedback loops?
|
|
- Are important components functionally interdependent?
|
|
- Does the whole possess organizational properties not captured by treating components independently?
|
|
- Are boundaries partly generated by these internal relations?
|
|
|
|
## Strong evidence
|
|
|
|
- mutual dependency,
|
|
- closed networks of constraints,
|
|
- integrated regulation,
|
|
- functional differentiation serving system-level continuity.
|
|
|
|
## Weak evidence
|
|
|
|
- arbitrary collections,
|
|
- independent services with no constitutive dependency,
|
|
- mere shared branding or physical location.
|
|
|
|
## Interpretation
|
|
|
|
Constitutive Integration asks:
|
|
|
|
> **What makes the parts belong to one continuing individual?**
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 8. AI-4 — Self-Maintenance Participation
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The system's own activity must contribute materially to maintaining the organization through which it continues to exist as this individual.
|
|
|
|
Self-maintenance does not imply self-sufficiency.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Does the system detect damage to constitutive structures?
|
|
- Does it repair, protect, restore, replace, or reorganize components?
|
|
- Does it maintain identity-relevant information?
|
|
- Does it protect the continuity of its own processes?
|
|
- Does its own activity improve the probability that it continues as this entity?
|
|
- How much maintenance is performed externally versus internally?
|
|
|
|
## Possible artificial manifestations
|
|
|
|
- integrity checking,
|
|
- backup and recovery,
|
|
- memory reconciliation,
|
|
- repair,
|
|
- identity-key protection,
|
|
- actor migration,
|
|
- policy enforcement,
|
|
- resource acquisition,
|
|
- corruption detection.
|
|
|
|
## Interpretation
|
|
|
|
A system may depend on external resources and still possess substantial self-maintenance.
|
|
|
|
The relevant question is not:
|
|
|
|
> **Can it exist without an environment?**
|
|
|
|
but:
|
|
|
|
> **Does it participate in preserving itself within that environment?**
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 9. AI-5 — Endogenous Viability
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The system must possess states or conditions whose preservation is relevant to continued existence as this individual.
|
|
|
|
These conditions constitute a provisional **viability domain**.
|
|
|
|
## Biological examples
|
|
|
|
- metabolic integrity,
|
|
- temperature range,
|
|
- cellular integrity,
|
|
- energy availability.
|
|
|
|
## Candidate artificial examples
|
|
|
|
- identity integrity,
|
|
- memory coherence,
|
|
- resource sufficiency,
|
|
- authorized control,
|
|
- availability of constitutive services,
|
|
- cryptographic continuity,
|
|
- recoverability,
|
|
- protected provenance.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Can the system enter states that threaten continued identity?
|
|
- Are there conditions under which it would cease to remain this individual?
|
|
- Can better and worse states be defined relative to its continued organization?
|
|
- Are these conditions derived from the system's constitution rather than only from an externally assigned task?
|
|
|
|
## Research caution
|
|
|
|
Artificial endogenous normativity remains unresolved.
|
|
|
|
A designer may create a viability condition.
|
|
|
|
That does not automatically make the condition internally constituted.
|
|
|
|
This distinction requires further research.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 10. AI-6 — Adaptive Regulation
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The system must regulate internal state or environmental interaction according to tendencies relevant to its viability or continuity.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Does the system detect threatening trends?
|
|
- Does it alter behavior in response?
|
|
- Can it compensate for disturbance?
|
|
- Can it change strategy when prior regulation fails?
|
|
- Does it distinguish stable from deteriorating states?
|
|
- Does it regulate environmental coupling rather than merely internal variables?
|
|
|
|
## Strong evidence
|
|
|
|
- anticipatory regulation,
|
|
- feedback,
|
|
- adaptive recovery,
|
|
- strategy revision,
|
|
- context-sensitive maintenance.
|
|
|
|
## Weak evidence
|
|
|
|
- passive robustness,
|
|
- fixed mechanical response,
|
|
- survival purely through environmental support.
|
|
|
|
## Interpretation
|
|
|
|
Adaptivity distinguishes:
|
|
|
|
> **withstanding disturbance**
|
|
|
|
from:
|
|
|
|
> **actively regulating in response to disturbance.**
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 11. AI-7 — Interactional Asymmetry
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The system must be an active causal source of at least some of its interactions with the environment.
|
|
|
|
Its behavior cannot be completely reducible to environmental forcing.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Does the system initiate interactions?
|
|
- Can internal state influence which interaction occurs?
|
|
- Can it select among alternatives?
|
|
- Can it resist or redirect environmental pressure?
|
|
- Can it modify the structure of its own coupling with the environment?
|
|
|
|
## Interpretation
|
|
|
|
Interactional Asymmetry captures a minimal form of agency.
|
|
|
|
It does not require:
|
|
|
|
- human-like intention,
|
|
- language,
|
|
- reflection,
|
|
- or consciousness.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 12. AI-8 — Identity-Preserving Transformation
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The system must support meaningful change while maintaining sufficient continuity for those changes to remain attributable to the same individual.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation questions
|
|
|
|
- Can components be replaced?
|
|
- Can capabilities be added or removed?
|
|
- Can the system learn?
|
|
- Can its embodiment change?
|
|
- Can it recover after interruption?
|
|
- Can it migrate between substrates?
|
|
- Can it modify internal structures while remaining the same individual?
|
|
- Where is the boundary between transformation and replacement?
|
|
|
|
## Interpretation
|
|
|
|
A system that cannot change is brittle.
|
|
|
|
A system that changes without continuity becomes another system.
|
|
|
|
Autonomous individuality therefore requires a concept of:
|
|
|
|
> **controlled transformation under continuity.**
|
|
|
|
## Deferred problems
|
|
|
|
This criterion does not yet resolve:
|
|
|
|
- forks,
|
|
- replicas,
|
|
- merges,
|
|
- snapshots,
|
|
- simultaneous manifestations,
|
|
- restoration from stale backups,
|
|
- Actor replacement.
|
|
|
|
These belong primarily to Soul Frame's Identity and Continuity research.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 13. Assessment vocabulary
|
|
|
|
Version 0.1 uses qualitative assessment.
|
|
|
|
| Rating | Meaning |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| **Strong** | Criterion is clearly constitutive of the candidate |
|
|
| **Moderate** | Criterion exists meaningfully but is partial or heavily dependent |
|
|
| **Weak** | Limited, derivative, or ambiguous manifestation |
|
|
| **Absent** | Criterion substantially not present |
|
|
| **Unknown** | Evidence or theory is insufficient |
|
|
|
|
A structured profile may be written as:
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
autonomous_individuality:
|
|
version: "0.1"
|
|
|
|
individuability: strong
|
|
temporal_integrity: strong
|
|
constitutive_integration: moderate
|
|
self_maintenance_participation: weak
|
|
endogenous_viability: unknown
|
|
adaptive_regulation: strong
|
|
interactional_asymmetry: strong
|
|
identity_preserving_transformation: moderate
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
No aggregate numerical score is defined in v0.1.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 14. Interpretation rules
|
|
|
|
## Rule 1 — Do not infer personhood
|
|
|
|
High autonomous individuality does not imply high personhood.
|
|
|
|
A self-maintaining daemon may score highly while possessing little:
|
|
|
|
- self-model,
|
|
- character,
|
|
- social cognition,
|
|
- autobiography,
|
|
- or relational depth.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Rule 2 — Do not infer consciousness
|
|
|
|
Nothing in these criteria establishes subjective experience.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Rule 3 — Do not infer social recognition
|
|
|
|
A system can be strongly autonomous without another Being recognizing it.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Rule 4 — Do not infer legal or moral status
|
|
|
|
The framework is descriptive and systems-theoretic.
|
|
|
|
Legal and moral implications require separate analysis.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Rule 5 — Do not equate physical boundary with individual boundary
|
|
|
|
Distributed or symbiotic systems may constitute coherent individuals.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Rule 6 — Allow nested individuality
|
|
|
|
A subsystem and a higher-order system may both exhibit autonomous individuality.
|
|
|
|
Examples may include:
|
|
|
|
- cell and organism,
|
|
- organism and colony,
|
|
- artificial agent and artificial collective.
|
|
|
|
Whether the higher-order system also qualifies as a Soul Frame Being is a separate question.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Rule 7 — Distinguish external support from internal maintenance
|
|
|
|
Environmental dependence does not negate autonomy.
|
|
|
|
The issue is whether the candidate itself participates in maintaining its organization.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Rule 8 — Distinguish functional goals from constitutive norms
|
|
|
|
An externally assigned objective such as:
|
|
|
|
> maximize task success
|
|
|
|
does not necessarily establish endogenous viability.
|
|
|
|
A stronger constitutive norm concerns preservation or controlled transformation of the organization by which the individual remains itself.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 15. Benchmark cases
|
|
|
|
The following cases should remain part of the regression suite.
|
|
|
|
## Bacterium
|
|
|
|
Expected:
|
|
|
|
- strong autonomous individuality,
|
|
- comparatively low human-like personhood.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
|
|
- establishes that personhood and autonomous individuality are distinct.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Human
|
|
|
|
Expected:
|
|
|
|
- strong autonomous individuality,
|
|
- strong personhood,
|
|
- normally strong recognition.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
|
|
- paradigm reference case.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Ant colony
|
|
|
|
Expected:
|
|
|
|
- substantial collective autonomous individuality.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
|
|
- tests nested and collective individuation.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Corporation
|
|
|
|
Expected:
|
|
|
|
- moderate to strong scores on several dimensions,
|
|
- unresolved constitutive autonomy and personhood.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
|
|
- tests whether organizational persistence is being overclassified.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Thermostat
|
|
|
|
Expected:
|
|
|
|
- regulation without strong self-maintenance or endogenous viability.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
|
|
- distinguishes regulation from autonomous individuality.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Kubernetes-like control plane
|
|
|
|
Expected:
|
|
|
|
- high integration and regulation,
|
|
- meaningful self-healing,
|
|
- substantial heteronomous desired state,
|
|
- little personhood.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
|
|
- prevents control engineering from being mistaken for Beinghood.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Base language model
|
|
|
|
Expected:
|
|
|
|
- high capability,
|
|
- low process-level autonomous individuality when considered only as a reusable model substrate.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
|
|
- reinforces `Actor ≠ Being`.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Stateless chatbot
|
|
|
|
Expected:
|
|
|
|
- weak autonomous individuality,
|
|
- potentially substantial personhood exposure.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
|
|
- inverse benchmark to infrastructure control systems.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Persistent AI agent
|
|
|
|
Expected:
|
|
|
|
- potentially substantial temporal integrity and adaptivity,
|
|
- often externally maintained constitutive organization.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
|
|
- evaluates current artificial agent architectures.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Self-maintaining daemon
|
|
|
|
Expected:
|
|
|
|
- potentially strong autonomous individuality,
|
|
- very low personhood.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
|
|
- decisive demonstration that autonomous individuality is not Beinghood.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Distributed artificial collective
|
|
|
|
Expected:
|
|
|
|
- potentially strong higher-level autonomous individuality.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
|
|
- tests distributed and nested artificial identity.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 16. Relationship to Soul Frame Beinghood
|
|
|
|
Autonomous Individuality is now treated as one major dimension underlying Soul Frame Beinghood.
|
|
|
|
The current research model is:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
INFORMATIONAL PROCESS
|
|
↓
|
|
INDIVIDUATION
|
|
↓
|
|
AUTONOMOUS INDIVIDUALITY
|
|
↓
|
|
PERSONHOOD
|
|
↓
|
|
ADDRESSABILITY
|
|
↓
|
|
RECOGNITION
|
|
↓
|
|
BEING
|
|
↓
|
|
SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
↓
|
|
SOCIAL BEING
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The sequence is analytical rather than necessarily chronological.
|
|
|
|
A future Being model is expected to combine at least:
|
|
|
|
\[
|
|
Being \approx
|
|
AutonomousIndividuality
|
|
+
|
|
Personhood
|
|
+
|
|
Addressability
|
|
+
|
|
Recognition
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
The exact relationship remains under research.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 17. Relationship to Agent, Spirit, and Ghost
|
|
|
|
Autonomous Individuality is orthogonal to the Soul Frame construction/provenance descriptors.
|
|
|
|
## Agent
|
|
|
|
Primarily functional.
|
|
|
|
An Agent may be:
|
|
|
|
- transient,
|
|
- persistent,
|
|
- weakly autonomous,
|
|
- or a highly autonomous individual.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Spirit — `Sp.`
|
|
|
|
Primarily character provenance through reflection on a historic, contemporary, or fictional personality.
|
|
|
|
A Spirit specification may exist without any autonomous individual.
|
|
|
|
An instantiated Spirit may acquire autonomous individuality.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Ghost — `Gh.`
|
|
|
|
Primarily identity provenance under legitimate authority concerning a real person.
|
|
|
|
A Ghost archive may contain rich identity material without being an autonomous individual.
|
|
|
|
An instantiated Ghost may acquire autonomous individuality.
|
|
|
|
Whether a `Gh.` constitutes:
|
|
|
|
- representation,
|
|
- succession,
|
|
- or continuation
|
|
|
|
of the represented biological person is an identity question and is not determined by these criteria.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 18. Research hypotheses
|
|
|
|
## AI-H1
|
|
|
|
Autonomous individuality is multidimensional rather than binary.
|
|
|
|
## AI-H2
|
|
|
|
Autonomous individuality can exist at multiple nested scales.
|
|
|
|
## AI-H3
|
|
|
|
Physical containment is neither necessary nor sufficient for autonomous individuality.
|
|
|
|
## AI-H4
|
|
|
|
Self-maintenance is more important than self-sufficiency.
|
|
|
|
## AI-H5
|
|
|
|
Endogenous normativity is a stronger criterion than externally supplied goals.
|
|
|
|
## AI-H6
|
|
|
|
Artificial systems may develop informational-organizational forms of constitutive autonomy without satisfying biological autopoiesis.
|
|
|
|
## AI-H7
|
|
|
|
Autonomous individuality and personhood can vary largely independently.
|
|
|
|
## AI-H8
|
|
|
|
Identity-preserving transformation is essential for persistent artificial individuals but requires a separate theory of identity continuity.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 19. Open questions
|
|
|
|
### AI-OQ1 — Informational viability
|
|
|
|
What constitutes viability for a primarily informational system?
|
|
|
|
### AI-OQ2 — Endogenous norms
|
|
|
|
Can creator-imposed requirements become genuinely constitutive norms?
|
|
|
|
### AI-OQ3 — External custody
|
|
|
|
How much external maintenance is compatible with constitutive autonomy?
|
|
|
|
### AI-OQ4 — Dormancy
|
|
|
|
Does an autonomous individual continue to exist while completely uninstantiated but recoverable?
|
|
|
|
### AI-OQ5 — Forking
|
|
|
|
How should autonomous individuality be understood after copying?
|
|
|
|
### AI-OQ6 — Collective closure
|
|
|
|
What evidence establishes a higher-level individual rather than merely coordinated components?
|
|
|
|
### AI-OQ7 — Measurement
|
|
|
|
Can the eight dimensions be operationalized quantitatively without collapsing distinct forms of organization?
|
|
|
|
### AI-OQ8 — Boundary conflict
|
|
|
|
What should happen when informational, causal, organizational, social, and legal boundaries disagree?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 20. Canonical compact formulation
|
|
|
|
> **Autonomous Individuality is the degree to which a distinguishable process preserves temporal integrity through an integrated organization whose own activity contributes to maintaining, regulating, and transforming the conditions under which it continues as that individual.**
|
|
|
|
Or, more compactly:
|
|
|
|
> **An autonomous individual participates in keeping itself the same evolving individual.**
|
|
|
|
This concept provides the systems-theoretic substrate on which Soul Frame can subsequently investigate:
|
|
|
|
- identity,
|
|
- personhood,
|
|
- addressability,
|
|
- recognition,
|
|
- social Beinghood,
|
|
- and Soul as relational continuity.
|