Understanding Understanding: An Evolutionary Autonomous Agent Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two poles of understanding define the hermeneutic circle: gestalt understanding, in which the experience of a text or piece of music is apprehended as a unity, and conceptual understanding, in which the work is broken down into more determinate parts. In our sensory-motor interaction with the world, the environment is composed of discrete objects, but there is also an omnipresent gestalt background of nonrepresentational practices that confer meaning on these objects. It is argued that neuroscience can provide an explanation of how a physical system instantiates these types of understanding. A naturalized version of temporality, that extended temporal horizon that frames the flux of sensible experience and confers meaning on it, is equated with the dynamical system concept of temporal hierarchical organization. With this naturalized concept of temporality, it is demonstrated how the two poles of understanding that define the hermeneutic circle can emerge in an evolutionary autonomous agent as those dynamics best suited to maintain optimal grip in that particular agent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it