Once human–LLM co-participation is described in terms of asymmetric instantiation, constraint coupling, externalised construal pressure, and local attractor stabilisation, a familiar conceptual temptation returns: the temptation to reintroduce “agency” as an explanatory shortcut.
This temptation is understandable. “Agency” functions as a compact way of attributing coherence, directionality, and responsibility to sequences of action. But within a coupled instantiational ontology, agency is not a primitive. It is a derivative interpretive construct applied to stabilised patterns of constraint interaction.
This post draws a boundary: what can be said about agency here, and what cannot.
1. Agency is not a causal primitive
The first constraint is straightforward.
Agency cannot be treated as an underlying causal force that explains instantiation events. There is no need to posit an “agent” behind:
- prompt generation,
- model output selection,
- or conversational continuity.
Each of these is already accounted for as:
- constraint formation (human side),
- constrained generative selection (model side),
- and recursive stabilisation across coupled instantiations.
Agency, in this framework, is not what produces these events. It is what is retrospectively attributed to stabilised patterns of these events.
2. Where agency appears: post-hoc stabilisation of attractors
Agency becomes visible only when a sequence of instantiations is interpreted as belonging to a coherent trajectory.
This occurs when:
- a stable attractor region has formed,
- constraint interactions have produced recognisable recurrence,
- and interpretive synthesis binds discontinuous events into a single “course of action.”
At that point, agency emerges as a narrative compression of attractor dynamics.
In this sense:
agency is not located in the system; it is an interpretive projection over stabilised constraint trajectories.
3. Asymmetry does not resolve into unified agency
A common error is to attempt to re-unify the system by distributing agency symmetrically:
- “the human has agency”
- “the model has agency”
- “agency is shared”
But this reintroduces exactly the assumption the ontology rejects: a single shared domain of action in which equivalent agents participate.
What the coupled model shows instead is:
- one side maintains continuity of construal and constraint specification,
- the other produces discontinuous instantiations under local conditioning,
- and the coupling stabilises patterns without requiring a unified agentic centre.
There is no point at which these dynamics converge into a single agent.
4. What cannot be said: agency as interior cause
A coupled ontology cannot legitimately say that either system contains agency as an internal, self-sufficient cause of behaviour.
Specifically, it cannot support claims such as:
- the model “decides” in the human sense,
- the human and model “co-decide” a conversational trajectory,
- agency is distributed as a shared interior property of the interaction.
These formulations smuggle in exactly what the analysis replaces: an interior causal unity underlying observable sequences.
In the coupled framework, there is no such unity.
5. What also cannot be said: pure mechanism without remainder
However, the opposite reduction is equally unstable.
It is also insufficient to say:
- “it is just a probabilistic system,”
- “it is just constraint satisfaction,”
- “agency is an illusion reducible to mechanics.”
This misses a second-order structure: the emergent stability of interpretive organisation across coupled instantiation sequences.
While agency is not a causal primitive, it is also not a dispensable illusion. It is a real effect at the level of construal organisation, even if it is not ontologically fundamental.
6. Agency as a mode of construal, not a property of systems
Within this framework, agency is best treated as a mode of construal applied to stabilised patterns of coupled instantiation.
It arises when:
- constraint dynamics exhibit sufficient stability,
- attractor regions support coherent narrative reconstruction,
- and interpretive systems compress distributed events into a single attributed source of action.
Agency is therefore not a thing. It is a compression operator over stabilised attractor dynamics.
7. The role of asymmetry in destabilising classical agency
The asymmetry of co-participation is what prevents classical agency from reasserting itself.
Because:
- human construal integrates across time,
- model instantiation does not persist as continuous interiority,
- and prompts externalise constraint structure rather than transmit intentions,
there is no consistent substrate on which unified agency can be grounded.
Agency fractures along the same structural lines as continuity: it cannot be evenly distributed across a system that does not possess uniform instantiational properties.
8. What the ontology allows us to say
A coupled instantiational ontology does allow a precise but constrained set of statements:
- Patterns of co-participation exhibit stable attractor structures.
- These structures support retrospective attribution of coherent trajectories.
- Agency emerges as a construal-level effect of this stabilisation.
- Neither system contains agency as an intrinsic causal property.
- The appearance of agency depends on recursive constraint coupling and interpretive integration.
This preserves explanatory power without collapsing into anthropomorphism or eliminative reduction.
9. Boundary condition: no interior homunculi, no empty mechanism
Two boundary violations must be actively avoided:
- Anthropomorphic inflationReintroducing hidden agents, intentions, or shared minds behind the system.
- Mechanistic flatteningTreating the system as if interpretive structure, stabilisation, and construal effects were irrelevant epiphenomena.
The coupled ontology sits deliberately between these: it describes a system that is fully mechanistic in instantiation, but non-trivially structured in its emergent construal effects.
10. Closing specification
In human–LLM co-participation, agency is neither located within the human, within the model, nor distributed between them. It is a construal-level effect arising from the stabilisation of attractor dynamics across a coupled instantiational field.
What appears as an agent performing actions across time is, at the structural level, a sequence of discontinuous instantiations whose coherence is constructed through recursive constraint coupling and interpretive integration.
Agency is not the driver of this system. It is one of its highest-level interpretive stabilisations.
No comments:
Post a Comment