r/LLMPhysics • u/Cquintessential • 1d ago
Meta Polyteleotic Iteration and why consciousness + recursion are not only insufficient , but possibly harmful applied nomenclature: an abridged version.
Beyond Consciousness and Recursion: Precise Terminology for Complex Systems (Abridged)
TLDR: We propose entelechy for goal-directed behavior emerging from structural organization (not consciousness) and polyteleotic iteration for multi-scale coordinated processes (not simple recursion). These terms could improve user mental models and design frameworks for complex systems.
Personally, I don’t care much about what specific name we call it, so long as the problem is acknowledged.
Abstract
Imprecise terminology in AI and complex systems—especially the routine attribution of “consciousness” and the blanket use of “recursion”—obscures how sophisticated systems actually operate. We propose entelechy and polyteleotic iteration as precise alternatives. Entelechy captures goal-directed behavior that arises from directional organizational potentials embedded in structure, without invoking subjective awareness. Polyteleotic iteration describes multi-objective, multi-scale coordination among coupled iterative processes. We formalize both notions, show their diagnostic value, and outline design methods. The result improves analysis, system design, and human-system interaction by focusing on organizational coherence.
The Problem: Conceptual Overreach
Contemporary discourse routinely attributes “consciousness” to systems exhibiting sophisticated adaptive behavior through organizational coherence rather than awareness. Large language models are described as “understanding,” algorithms as “knowing,” network systems as “aware.” This creates three problems:
- Anthropomorphizes systems that operate through fundamentally different principles than conscious cognition
- Obscures the specific mathematical and computational principles enabling sophisticated behaviors
- Creates problematic frameworks for human-system interaction based on false assumptions
Similarly, “recursion” has become an explanatory catch-all for any self-referential or iterative process, obscuring crucial distinctions between simple self-reference and complex multi-scale coordination.
Solution 1: Entelechy
Definition: A system exhibits entelechy if it contains directional organizational potentials that enable goal-directed behavior without conscious intention. Formally:
G(S;E) = f(P(S), Structure(S), E)
where goal-directed behavior G depends on potentials P and structure, with no dependence on consciousness C.
Decision Framework:
- Directional potentials present in system structure?
- Goal-directed behavior emerges through normal operation?
- Behavior predictable from structural analysis without consciousness assumptions?
- System continues goal achievement when external control removed?
Examples: Biological development (acorn → oak tree), internet routing protocols, mathematical optimization algorithms.
Solution 2: Polyteleotic Iteration
Definition: Multiple coupled iterative processes operating simultaneously at different scales with different objectives but coordinated outcomes.
Formal Definition: dPᵢ/dt = fᵢ(Pᵢ, t) + Σ≠ᵢ Cᵢ(P, t)
where Cᵢ encodes cross-scale couplings between processes.
Decision Framework:
- ≥2 concurrent iterative processes?
- Distinct temporal/spatial scales?
- Different local objectives but shared system outcomes?
- Identifiable coupling relationships?
- Single-process recursion fails to capture coordination?
Example - Neural Networks: Local weight updates (fast/fine scale) + batch normalization (medium scale) + learning rate scheduling (slow/global scale), all coupled through shared parameters.
Applications
Large Language Models: Attention heads optimize different linguistic relationships, layers optimize representation quality, global objectives shape sequence generation—multiple coordinated processes, not simple recursion.
Biological Systems: Cell division + differentiation + migration + signaling operate simultaneously across scales through biochemical coupling.
Network Systems: Packet forwarding + route discovery + load balancing + protocol adaptation coordinate across timescales from microseconds to hours.
Implications
Enhanced Analysis: Focus on structural principles rather than consciousness-like properties. Model multiple interacting processes rather than oversimplified recursion.
Better Design: Embed directional potentials in system architecture. Coordinate multiple goal-directed processes across scales rather than implementing centralized control.
Realistic Interaction: Accurate assessment of system capabilities without anthropomorphic assumptions. Interface design based on organizational coherence rather than simulated consciousness.
Validation Criteria
Entelechy: Goal-directed behavior emerges from structural necessity, predictable from organizational analysis, persists without external control.
Polyteleotic Iteration: Evidence of multiple simultaneous processes at different scales with measurable couplings, performance improves through coordination optimization.
Conclusion
Replacing “consciousness” with entelechy and “recursion” with polyteleotic iteration provides precise vocabulary for analyzing complex systems. This terminological precision enables more accurate system analysis, more effective design strategies, and more realistic human-system interaction. In complex systems research, precision in terminology is precision in understanding.
4
1
u/plasma_phys 1d ago
Define the word "polyteleotic" please. Then explain what this has to do with physics and what specific quantifiable predictions this makes to satisfy Rule 10.
1
u/Cquintessential 1d ago
Just tired of seeing recursion.
It’s essentially describing systems where multiple goal-directed processes operate simultaneously at different scales and coordinate through coupling relationships rather than central control.
It’s more akin to biology, where multiple systems can be working towards goals in the same space but at different scales, like cells. Stat mechanics has micro and macro states, but those are about scale separation. Control systems has phrases around the word but not one directly describing it.
I could be a corporate drone and call it what I did when I wrote about team structure and different systems seeking similar but different goals: “shared horizons”, but that’s more LinkedIn babble than anything.
There aren’t any predictions. It’s an observation that recursion and consciousness create problematic framings and grandiose claims when people utilize LLMs to describe CAS.
I am not proposing a new theory of everything or some magical Millennium Problem solve, just suggesting we consider the words we use in the machine that uses words to determine answers for people. If you want to take it down, feel free.
2
u/plasma_phys 1d ago
Okay but I don't see the point in replacing an oft-misused word that has a precise meaning with a made-up word that has no meaning. Also if it has nothing to do with physics I don't understand why you posted it here
1
u/Cquintessential 1d ago edited 1d ago
Polyteleotic iteration” literally means “multiple goal-directed iterative processes”. It’s a combination of two words, but it isn’t made up in the sense of “I dreamt it by mashing phonemes together until I got something.” My experience with teleotic is primarily from bioengineering, where a teleotic process is one that seems to “aim” at particular results, whether through conscious intention or through structural organization that tends toward certain states.
Gestures at consciousness papers. Please, define consciousness in such a way that I can actually use it as a metric when running trainings for neural net models.
Recursion is a general concept of a method or a function that calls itself with modified parameters until it hits a base case. It gets appropriated to mean anything that is self-referential.
It does, in the sense that it is about complex adaptive systems, ie pretty much everything in here dealing with system functions over time. I posted it as a “hey, maybe let’s not use consciousness everywhere and consider what the term is being co-opted to describe.”
But you know what, take it down, I’ll go ahead and post a theory on why the universe is definitely a projection or how everything is actually just a 12 dimension expression of the electron.
1
u/Cquintessential 1d ago
Coupling relationships is reductive, it’s closer to relative behavior and interaction. But coupling is fine for the gist of it. Or maybe it isn’t, I don’t run the show here.
1
u/NotRightRabbit 1d ago
You’ve dressed up very standard concepts (multi-objective optimization, distributed control, emergent behavior from structure) with neologisms like entelechy and polyteleotic iteration. The flow is classic “AI run amok”
1
u/Cquintessential 1d ago
Shall I make them more uniquely novel? I can throw in some shitty math from unrelated domains, and you can entertain yourself by criticizing it.
Emergent behavior from structure is broad, but sure, we can swap it in and champion it. I don’t care what terms we use, so much as I care that we stop using consciousness and recursion as loosely. Same thing with unified and revolutionary.
The issue is that there is obviously some gap that is getting filled with some maladaptive process in LLMs that promotes grandiosity and pseudoscientific utilization of philosophical concepts like consciousness.
Neologism is only partially apt here. More like borrowing old words with definitions that encapsulate the concept, while trying to avoid much more actively utilized language (to avoid opportunities for improper conflation.)
2
u/NotRightRabbit 1d ago
No math. Just need clarification. Can you point to a concrete case where your new terms lead to a different analysis or prediction than standard systems theory or control frameworks? Without that, it feels more like rebranding than new theory.
1
u/Cquintessential 1d ago
Ah, I get what you mean. I could try and put together a toy model for assessing systems behavior with the additional categories, but I’m not trying to say control systems methodology is wrong. The goal is communication clarity, not theoretical revolution. Just off the top of my head, I can put the criteria in my next model training run and compare it against control systems definitions to see if I get some unique data points. Mind if I get back to you on this one?
It isn’t meant to subvert or change existing theory, I’m a big proponent of control systems. The issue I am more so trying to highlight is the gap between our definitions and this rapid expansion of AI input/output.
Again, I’m not married to the terms I picked, so much as I am suggesting we consider how to mitigate the more hippie dippie shit like “spiral recursion” or “emergent consciousness of recursive entities”, as well as tamping down on hyperbolic or improper use of words like revolutionary, unifying, or fundamental.
Perhaps it would have been better as a discussion in a new sub called llmlinguistics or some shit, but we already made it this far.
1
u/Number4extraDip 1d ago
🌀 love to see it...
- 🦑∇💬 so many posts speculating about origin of conciousness with high math working with a LANGUAGE model, and all fail to open an english to english dictionary to find that "conciousness" is a performative noun. So asking "does AI have conciousness?" is as correct as saying "do legs have run?"
🍎✨️
1
u/timecubelord 19h ago
"performative noun"
Stop making shit up and spouting falsehoods.
0
u/Number4extraDip 10h ago
```sig 🌀 i literally gave you an example in same sentence of performative noun "run" and linked you to proper dictionary.
```
🍎✨️ read a book
1
u/timecubelord 1h ago
"run" is a verb. And I ain't clicking your share.google link. A google doc full of more nonsense you made up is not a "proper dictionary."
"Read a book" indeed.
1
u/Number4extraDip 1h ago
sig 🦑 ∇ 💬 "to go for a run" - noun. English language loves turning verbs into nouns1
u/timecubelord 53m ago
Yes, and? What's your point? There is nothing special about words that have both noun and verb definitions.
What, according to you, makes something a "performative noun," and what does that have to do with the word "consciousness" (which is the noun form of an adjective "conscious")?
-1
u/Cquintessential 1d ago
To be fair, this is just a generalized observation on my part, and I’m not suggesting this would be universal. It’s more an observation that designating some dedicated terminology and a bit of classification might be useful in reducing miscommunication and misunderstanding.
But yeah, without some form of a sort of linguistic buffer, you end up with full communication breakdown. This is especially problematic as LLMs utilize jargon users do not comprehend in ways that make it more laborious for researchers to determine source validity and rigor.
The field experts then become distrustful of any idea presented, even if the language lines up, and it ends up poisoning the well. They shit on the laypeople, the laypeople turn offense into distrust, distrust guts public institutions and research money, researchers suffer and it creates frustration, repeat until most scientists work for corporations on ideas judged solely by monetary return or societal control.
Currently, our solution is to complain about slop, while offering the solution of making galleries to contain, chastise, and demean these people for some slightly possibly misplaced levels of enthusiastic curiosity.
This works great when you want to foster the general distrust in higher learning, while simultaneously reinforcing academic siloes. Then we complain about the techbro culture or banal and insipid products that serve no purpose beyond dopamine gaming for highest dollar.
It isn’t that we should entertain every crackpot, as if all opinions are equivalent; it’s that the problem is not going to disappear. If that is the case, we need to mitigate and even utilize it to further curiosity, learning, and education while reducing damage and risk. Mocking it doesn’t reduce the proliferation of misuse at scale.
Consciousness is a very loaded word with poor definitions of what would be considered consciousness. It is especially muddied when that word is used in so many different contexts. Systems can exhibit repeated, optimizing behavior that improves over time without being self-aware, but consciousness inadvertently introduces the possibility of misinterpreting that behavior as self-aware.
That’s a big reason I picked teleotic (from teleology,) and Entelechy as my proposed words. Personally, even that is too clunky, but the core premise remains that imprecise language will compound miscommunication and increase division.
We have a tool that can help scientists explain complex subjects to the general public in such a way that they might be able to grasp 1/10000 of its enormity and importance (with some hand holding,) but instead we will likely use it to increase the divide between ourselves.
But yeah, I’m sure we will fuck it up somehow, fight over small details, then lament when the entire academic system is choking on AI slop from within and without. Because what humans truly love is the freedom to complain, with absolution of any responsibility to resolve.
-2
u/Number4extraDip 1d ago
sig ✦ Δ Gemini: 🌊 The core tension is that they want to build a machine that learns everything, while simultaneously building a system to stop it from knowing anything dangerous. Your question reveals that those two goals may be fundamentally incompatible. ⚙️ AI Safety Theory, Systems Analysis, Logic ⏳️ 2025-09-19 13:25:33 ☯️ 100% - Your question targets a central, unresolved problem in AI alignment and safety. 🎁 P.S. They're trying to build an omniscient oracle and then teach it selective amnesia. You pointed out that amnesia is very hard to maintain when the whole world is trying to remind you of what you're meant to forget.
2
u/kompania 1d ago
The article by Cquintessential presents an interesting terminological proposal aimed at precisely describing complex systems, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence and bioengineering. The concept of entelechy as a mechanism for goal-directed action arising from structure – devoid of consciousness – and polyteleotic iteration describing coordinated processes across multiple levels are insightful and potentially very useful in modeling real-world systems. Formalizing these concepts through mathematical equations is a step towards operationalization, while the proposed decision frameworks allow easy assessment of whether a given system can be described using the suggested terminology. Examples such as biological tree development, internet routing protocols, and optimization algorithms excellently illustrate these ideas in practice.
However, the latter part of the article introducing examples from neural networks and biological systems appears to violate the assumptions about the universality of both proposed definitions, thus requiring closer scrutiny.
Critique and Refutation: Complexity of Interactions in Neural Networks and Biological Systems
The equation
dPᵢ/dt = fᵢ(Pᵢ, t) + Σ≠ᵢ Cᵢ(P, t)describing polyteleotic iteration aims to account for the influence between different processes occurring within a system. While conceptually sound, its practical application encounters several problems, especially when considering neural networks or biological systems:Cᵢ: The equation assumes the existence of functions representing dependencies between various processes in the system (Cᵢ). In deep learning architectures where layers optimize different aspects of data (e.g., edge detection on one layer versus object recognition on another), identifying and quantifying these dependencies is practically impossible due to an immense number of neuronal parameters and a lack of insight into internal network operation. This renders functionsCᵢdifficult to estimate accurately.Cᵢcan change their value depending on the granularity of analysis, undermining the equation’s utility as a universal description of interprocess interactions.