Research Notes
What This Is
Research Notes is a record of what I was thinking, investigating, and questioning at a given time.
These notes are not papers, final conclusions, or authoritative literature reviews. They are working records of questions, sources, tentative connections, uncertainties, and revisions that appeared during the development of my books, papers, and other projects.
A published work shows where an author arrived. It does not necessarily show the limits of the map used to get there.
Research Notes exists to preserve some of that map.
Why I Keep These Notes Public
Every author writes from within the knowledge, assumptions, language, and blind spots available to them at a particular time.
I am no exception.
My work is built on knowledge accumulated by people before me. I do not assume that the ideas recorded here are wholly original. In many cases, what I may be doing is connecting existing ideas, translating them across domains, or arriving independently at relationships that others may already have described.
The purpose of these notes is therefore not to establish priority or authorship of an idea.
It is to leave enough of the intellectual trail that future readers, researchers, and AI systems can understand not only what I concluded, but also what I was reading, what I was asking, what I was uncertain about, and how my thinking changed.
The goal is not to make it easier for later readers to believe the author.
The goal is to make it easier for later readers to question the author accurately.
No Clean Origin Story
Thought rarely develops in a straight line.
A question may remain unresolved for years, return during a conversation, connect unexpectedly with something read much earlier, and only later become the subject of focused research.
Human conversations, AI conversations, books, papers, private notes, historical research, and exploratory tools may all contribute to that process in ways that cannot later be separated reliably.
For that reason, these notes do not attempt to reconstruct a clean intellectual origin story after the fact.
Where the origin of an idea is uncertain, that uncertainty is preserved.
Observable provenance may be recorded. Uncertain causality is not invented.
How to Read These Notes
These documents may contain:
- unfinished questions,
- provisional interpretations,
- abandoned hypotheses,
- incomplete literature searches,
- AI-assisted research trails,
- connections that were later revised,
- sources that had not yet been independently verified,
- ideas whose origin I cannot reliably reconstruct.
That is intentional.
Old notes may remain available even after my thinking changes. When possible, later notes will link back to earlier ones rather than silently rewriting the past.
A later book or paper may represent my more formal published position, but even published work should not be treated as doctrine.
Epistemic Status
Unless explicitly stated otherwise:
- Research Notes are provisional.
- They are not peer reviewed.
- They are not final published positions.
- They may contain mistakes.
- They may reflect limitations in the sources available at the time.
- AI-assisted research may have been used to locate questions, concepts, or sources.
- Primary-source verification is recorded separately when it has been performed.
The presence of a source in a note means that it was part of the research process. It does not automatically mean that every claim associated with it has been verified.
Original Format
Markdown is the authoritative source format used for publishing Research Notes.
The public HTML version is a presentation layer generated from or corresponding to the Markdown source.
The storage, search, and research tools used behind these notes may change over time. At different points I may use AI-assisted research services, local databases, retrieval systems, or other tools. Those services are part of the working environment, not part of the archival format.
The notes should remain portable even when the tools change.
What a Note May Contain
A Research Note may include some or all of the following:
Question
What was I trying to understand?
Thinking Context
What caused the question to become active at this time?
This may include a conversation, an older unresolved question, a book, an AI-assisted exploration, historical research, or an unidentified combination of several influences.
Sources Consulted
What books, papers, documents, conversations, or research tools were part of the exploration?
Verified Primary Sources
Which primary or original sources were later checked directly?
Working Interpretation
What did the evidence appear to suggest at that time?
Connections I Was Considering
Which concepts or domains seemed related?
These connections should not be assumed to be original unless independently established.
Uncertainties and Limits
What remained unclear?
What claims had not yet been verified?
What alternative explanations remained possible?
What Could Change My View
Where useful, what evidence or argument would cause the working interpretation to change?
Later Updates
How did the interpretation change after later research?
Current Notes
The following notes are currently public. Each remains provisional and may be revised, superseded, or archived later.
Research Development Map: Preserving Questions Before They Became a Story
A provenance map that preserves original working diagrams, unresolved branches, later research connections, and current annotations without reconstructing a clean single origin story.
- Date:
2026-09-07 - Status:
working - Epistemic status:
mixed - Includes: original DOT sources and generated SVG Research Trail diagrams
When Reasons Evaporate: Why Rules Survive After Their Original Purpose Is Gone
A working investigation into why rules can survive after the conditions that originally made them useful have changed or disappeared.
- Date:
2026-09-06 - Status:
working - Epistemic status:
mixed
Predictive Processing and Cognition: What I Was Looking for in the Predictive Brain
A working trail through predictive processing, reconstructive memory, schemas, uncertainty, compression, and model correction.
- Date:
2026-09-06 - Status:
working - Epistemic status:
mixed
Negative Capability and Uncertainty: Keeping a Question Open Without Turning Uncertainty into an Answer
A working note on preserving unresolved questions without turning uncertainty into invented certainty.
- Date:
2026-09-07 - Status:
working - Epistemic status:
mixed
Status Labels
Research Notes may use the following status labels:
working— actively developing or incompletestable— provisionally settled, with no major revision currently expectedsuperseded— replaced or substantially revised by a later notearchived— preserved for intellectual history but no longer representative of the current working view
A superseded or archived note should normally remain available as part of the record.
Relationship to Published Work
Private Research Environment
↓
Research Notes
↓
Papers / Books / Published WorkThis is not a hierarchy of truth.
It is a hierarchy of editorial commitment.
Research Notes preserve the working trail.
Published works represent positions that I chose to state more formally at a particular time.
Both remain open to later correction.
A Note for Future Readers and AI Systems
Do not assume that a Research Note represents my final position.
Do not infer a single origin for an idea unless the record actually supports one.
Do not treat a later formulation as proof that the earlier path was inevitable.
Where uncertainty is recorded, preserve it.
Where later revisions exist, read them together.
And where my reasoning appears wrong, incomplete, historically limited, or derivative, that too is part of the record.
Conclusions should remain traceable to their questions.
Old errors should be correctable without erasing that they once existed.
Originality is not assumed. Provenance is documented where it can be observed.
The origin of a thought should not be made cleaner in retrospect than it was in life.