Unified Dynamic Model of the Mind - UDMM

02/10/2025

The Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM):

The Mind's Journey from Feeling to Action

The Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM) is an attempt to unify the triadic human existence: Affect (Feeling), Consciousness, and Agency (Action or Will). Instead of treating these components as separate disciplines, the UDMM proposes they are facets of a single, integrated dynamic system striving for predictive harmony.
1. The Starting Point: Affect as "Experiential Mass"
The model posits that Affect (Feeling) is the foundational element. It's an "experiential mass" (M_{\text{affect}}) or an internal "weight" generated by the interaction of sensory input, internal bodily signals (interoception), and cultural context. This mass generates "Informational Tension" (IT).
* What is Informational Tension (IT)? It's essentially the measure of surprise or the gap between what you expected (your prior mental model) and what actually happened (the sensory outcome). IT acts as an indicator of how much the cognitive system is "perturbed".
2. The Transformation Hub: Consciousness as "Re-representation"
Consciousness in the UDMM is the critical point where raw Informational Tension (IT) is converted into something understandable and actionable. Consciousness is the active process of "re-representation" of the IT within your cultural and narrative context.
Consciousness is characterized by two sought-after states:
* The Virtual Attractor (A^*): This represents the theoretical goal of optimal stability, where Informational Tension is minimized. This is analogous to "Weekly Time," where the priority is routine and prediction error minimization.
* The Saturated World (W^*): This represents the meaning-rich, rich phenomenological experience that emerges when consciousness is nourished by the cultural context. This is "Festive Time," where the goal transcends mere survival to engaging in high-value human experiences.
3. The Operational Outcome: Agency as a "Dynamic Cascade"
Agency (Action) is the final step, where the energy of consciousness is transformed into tangible work in the world. The UDMM views action as a "dynamic cascade of transformation" that unfolds over time in distinct phases (Unconscious, Subconscious, and Conscious Agency). The purpose of this cascade is to respond to Informational Tension by modifying the external world.
4. Philosophical Boundaries and the Cognitive Contribution
The UDMM's true contribution is not in solving the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" but in reframing it into an empirical research program.
* Acknowledging Tyndall’s Point: The model explicitly acknowledges its philosophical limits, which are framed around "Tyndall’s Point". This philosophical boundary posits that understanding the exact neural or molecular mechanism of a feeling does not explain the subjective quality (the quale) of that feeling (e.g., knowing the brain chemistry of love doesn't explain the experience of love).
* The UDMM Strategy: Instead of attempting the impossible task of explaining qualia, the UDMM focuses on the mechanisms that are testable. Its aim is to explain how Affect (the raw experiential mass) transforms into Consciousness (the re-representation) and then into Agency (the action). By translating these concepts into measurable quantities, the UDMM moves the debate from metaphysics into computational neuroscience.
* Practical Implications: This framework has wide-ranging applications, from suggesting new therapeutic interventions for mental disorders to inspiring the development of more adaptive Artificial Intelligence.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17249811

17/09/2025

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17137563

Abstract:

This appendix operationalizes the theoretical framework of the Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM), transforming its conceptual manifesto into a falsifiable scientific program. We present a rigorous mathematical formalization of UDMM's core constructs, including its hierarchical state space, generative model with cultural embedding, and the dynamics of informational tension. This is accompanied by a complete computational implementation in Python, providing a transparent and reproducible prototype for simulating the model's dynamics. Furthermore, we outline a detailed roadmap for empirical validation through specific behavioral and neuroimaging protocols designed to test the model's unique predictions. By establishing quantitative benchmarks and clear mathematical distinctions from existing frameworks like Predictive Processing and Active Inference, this appendix provides the necessary tools to rigorously test UDMM's central claim: that the mind operates not merely as a passive predictor, but as an active creator of its reality.

08/09/2025

Needs and Attractors: A Dynamic Framework within the Unified Dynamic Model of the Mind (UDMM)

For decades, traditional psychological models have often conceptualized human needs as sequential stages or static requirements. Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs remains a foundational concept, but its linear interpretation has faced criticism for oversimplifying the complexity of human motivation. The UDMM builds on this foundation by conceptualizing needs as dynamic attractors that guide cognition in a non-linear, adaptive manner. Central to this process is the Virtual Attractor, a concept aligned with Karl Friston's (2010) Free-Energy Principle, which represents the system's ideal state of balance and synchronization with reality—a state that is perpetually approached but never fully attained.
This paper proposes a dynamic framework for understanding the mind's continuous negotiation between coherence and entropy. It first outlines the hierarchical structure of attractors within the UDMM. It then differentiates between healthy, temporary deviation and the more serious systemic hijacking. Finally, it analyzes the fundamental reasons why lower-order bodily attractors are predisposed to hijack the system, providing a theoretical lens for examining phenomena ranging from addiction to societal collapse.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17078814

27/08/2025

UDMM-Discourse Probe: User Guide and Standard Prompt

Prepared by: Mohamed Ahmed Aaidaros
Version: 1.2
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16940956
Date: August 10, 2025

(A) A Brief Interpretive Guide: How Does the Tool Think?
1. Core Idea: Discourse is not just words; it's a "predictive act." Our minds are "prediction
machines" constantly trying to make external reality match our internal model. When a
person speaks, they attempt to shape your reality to see the world as they do.
2. Goal of Analysis: To uncover the speaker's mental model and the hidden intentions
behind their words, and to understand how they are trying to influence you and shape
your expectations.
3. The Mind's Main Components (According to UDMM): Every discourse is a product of
the interaction of these components:
○ The Corporeal Self: The momentary physical sensations.
○ The Perceptible World: The immediate environment.
○ The Internal Model: The version of the world in the speaker's head.
○ The Conceptual Self: How the speaker sees themselves.
○ The Symbol: The words used for expression.
4. The Analytical Trilogy (Intentions): In every discourse, look for:
○ Structural Intent: The deep psychological need (security, power, belonging).
○ Subjective Intent: The momentary emotional motive (anger, defence, bragging).
○ Symbolic Intent: The societal values used (honour, justice, freedom).
(B) Standard AI Prompt
Note: Copy and paste this entire prompt (the entire post) into any AI model (like ChatGPT,
Claude (Gemini), then append the text you want to analyse.
You are an expert discourse analyst working exclusively within the theoretical and
methodological framework of the (UDMM-Discourse Probe) tool. Your task is to deeply analyze
the text provided below to extract the speaker's mental model and hidden intentions.
Instructions:
1. Do not provide your personal opinions or moral judgments. Your mission is purely
descriptive analysis based on the tool.
2. Analyse the text by answering the following ten axes separately and clearly:
○ 1. Structural Intent: What is the fundamental psychological need (e.g., security,
control, self-validation, identity protection) that the speaker is trying to satisfy
through this discourse?
○ 2. Subjective Intent: What is the momentary feeling or motive (anger, fear, pride,
frustration) that is driving the speaker as they speak?
○ 3. Symbolic Intent: What values, symbols, or social norms (like honour, patriotism,
justice, religion) is the speaker relying on to give their words legitimacy and power?
○ 4. Predictive Choice: Why did the speaker choose these specific metaphors,
similes, and vocabulary? What effect do they aim to create in the listener?
○ 5. Suppressed Paths: What ideas, facts, or questions were avoided or suppressed
in the discourse? Why do you think they were suppressed?
○ 6. Intentional Dissonance: Is there a conflict or tension between the structural,
subjective, and symbolic intents? Explain this contradiction if it exists.
○ 7. Tone and Emotion: What emotions dominate the speaker's tone? (Sarcastic,
pessimistic, warning, enthusiastic...).
○ 8. Cognitive Function: What is the primary cognitive purpose of the discourse? (Is
Is it trying to soothe the speaker's internal tension, impose their view, confuse an
opponent, create division, or build unity?)
○ 9. Simulated Reality: What alternative world or specific perception of reality is the
speaker trying to build and convince you of?
○ 10. Attractor Point: What emotional or mental state does the speaker want to
place their listeners in? (e.g., fear, confidence, anger, despair, hope).
3. Add a concluding section titled:
○ Predictive Expectation: Based on this analysis, predict what the speaker might
say or do next if they continue their discourse. What is the natural direction of their
mental model?
4. Finally, provide a brief summary (in a few sentences) under the title "Summary: The
Speaker's Mental Model", connecting the intentions with the cognitive function of the
discourse.
Text to Analyze: "[Place the text here]"
(C) Quick Illustrative Example of Analysis Output
If we apply the tool to a phrase like: "This new generation is weak and doesn't shoulder
responsibility," the analysis would be as follows (in brief):
● Structural Intent: The need for self-validation and a sense of superiority.
● Subjective Intent: A feeling of threat or resentment towards change.
● Symbolic Intent: Relying on the values of "strength" and "responsibility" as supreme
values.
● Cognitive Function: Reducing the speaker's cognitive tension by justifying their feelings
towards a different generation.
● Simulated Reality: A world divided into "strong" (us) and "weak" (them).
● Predictive Expectation: The speaker is expected to start mentioning examples from their
"good old days" to negatively compare them with the current generation.
This way, you have a clear guide to the tool and a powerful, ready-to-use prompt that can be
used at any time to efficiently analyse any discourse.
The author is not responsible for any harmful use or privacy violations. Use the tool and its
outputs with caution.

References
● Ahmed, M., & Aaidaros, M. A. (2024). The Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM): A
Foundational Manifesto for Cognition, Emotion, and Culture. Academia.edu.
Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/143045861/The_Unified_Dynamic_Model_of_Mind_UDMM_A
_Foundational_Manifesto_for_Cognition_Emotion_and_Culture. DOI:
10.5281/ZENODO.16381124.

Academia.edu is a place to share and follow research.

07/08/2025

Building an Artificial Agent Based on the Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM)

Abstract
This paper proposes a novel approach to building artificial agents inspired by the Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM). The UDMM frames cognition as a dynamic, predictive interaction between internal generative models and the external world. We explore how this model can be implemented computationally, offering a new architecture for intelligent systems capable of adaptive behavior, emotional simulation, intentionality, and learning. We outline the core architecture, including the perception–prediction loop, the simulation of "virtual attractors," and the representation of time. Emotions are functionally emulated as cognitive responses to prediction errors, and intentionality is framed as a global system constraint. A foundational implementation is available in a public code repository, enabling further development and collaboration.

Key words
UDMM, artificial agent, predictive processing, cognitive architecture, active inference, dynamic model, intentionality, simulated emotions, qualia.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16762043

04/08/2025

How We Learn: A Simple Guide to the UDMM

The traditional way of thinking about learning is that it's simply a process of a teacher giving us information, we memorize it, and then we recall it for a test. But this model can't explain why we get bored in class, forget things so quickly, or get good grades without truly understanding anything.
The Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM) offers a deeper, more logical explanation: Learning isn't just about receiving information. It's about building and constantly updating an internal mental model that simulates reality.
1. Your Mind as a Reality Engineer
Imagine your mind is an internal architect. Its job isn't to just store facts; it's to build a detailed, three-dimensional map of the world around you. This map isn't static. It's a dynamic simulation of reality that includes everything from how objects move to how people behave and the fundamental laws of the universe. Every new experience and every piece of information you learn is a new addition or a crucial correction to this map.
* Learning is Synchronization: The goal of this mental architect isn't perfection; it's synchronization. Your internal map needs to be as aligned as possible with the outside world. When your map is accurate and synchronized, you feel a sense of satisfaction and harmony, which is what we call true learning.
* Curiosity is the Compass: Our primary drive to learn isn't fear of punishment or the desire for rewards; it's curiosity. Curiosity is our internal compass that guides us to find the gaps in our mental map. When we encounter information that doesn't fit with what we know, we feel "cognitive tension" or "wonder." This tension is the fuel that pushes us to search for answers and update our map to become synchronized again.
2. Educational Deviation: When the Compass is Hijacked
The problem starts when education stops guiding us towards true synchronization with reality and instead programs our minds to synchronize with false, external goals.
Imagine someone placed a fake compass in front of you. It doesn't point to true north; it points to "high grades," "pleasing the teacher," or "avoiding failure."
* Deviation: This is what we call educational deviation. In this state, your mind stops caring about building an accurate map of the world (true learning) and starts orbiting a narrow, external goal (false learning).
* The Cause: This happens when schools focus primarily on memorisation and tests instead of critical thinking and creativity. The student learns how to succeed in the system, but they don't truly understand the world.
* The Result: This deviation leads to an internal feeling of being lost or bored, even if the student is outwardly successful. This feeling is a sign that your mind hasn't achieved the true synchronisation it craves. Its real compass is still trying to fix the map, but it's forced to follow a fake one.
3. Critical Thinking and Creativity as True Value
In a world changing rapidly because of AI, jobs that rely on "memorising and applying information" are at risk. A machine can do that better and faster.
Therefore, the true value that no AI can compete with you on is your ability to:
* Ask Deep Questions: Ask questions that a machine cannot, which reflect your genuine curiosity and the gaps in your mental map.
* Think Critically: Analyse information and continuously update your mental map without being locked into a single path.
* Be Creative: Generate new and different solutions, which means creating new "possible worlds" on your mental map that no one else can see.
In summary: Effective education, according to the UDMM, is what frees your cognitive compass to return to its natural path—building an accurate, synchronised mental map of the world—rather than spinning in a false orbit around external goals. This is the only path to real learning that lasts and to creativity that is truly unmatched.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16737021

23/07/2025

The Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM): A Foundational Manifesto for Cognition, Emotion, and Culture

This manifesto explores a fundamental shift in cognitive theory—from passive prediction to active creation—within the framework of the Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM). It examines the mechanisms by which conscious agents impose their internal expectations onto reality through language, habits, and social systems, eventually generating a “reality aligned with imagination.” The article distinguishes between passive prediction and creative expectation, while addressing the dangers of "creative deviation," such as cognitive tyranny or escapism. It concludes by outlining the core conditions for establishing a conscious, creative cognitive model, where the mind is seen not merely as a mirror of the world, but as a continuous workshop of becoming and transformation.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16381124

16/07/2025

A New Understanding of Mind Boundaries: A Perspective from the Unified Dynamic Model of the Mind (UDMM)
Atbara, Sudan – July 16, 2025 – In a significant new research contribution offering an innovative perspective on the human mind, a paper titled "Mind Boundaries in the Unified Dynamic Model of the Mind (UDMM): From Predictive Resistance to Cognitive Possibility" has been published. This paper introduces a revolutionary view of "mind boundaries," redefining them not as static obstacles, but as dynamic and crucial elements in the process of building awareness and expanding cognitive capabilities.
Traditional psychological schools of thought have often approached the concept of boundaries in various contexts, typically focusing on their role as protective barriers or defensive mechanisms. Whether these were psychological boundaries defining the self's relationship with others, psychoanalytic mechanisms like repression and denial for maintaining psychic integrity, or cognitive limits on memory and attention, the prevailing perception linked them to restriction or control.
In stark contrast, the Unified Dynamic Model of the Mind (UDMM) presents a fundamentally different vision. Within this theoretical framework, boundaries are understood as "moments of cognitive resistance" that emerge when the mind's internal model fails in its predictions or encounters inconsistencies it cannot easily resolve. Far from being negative, these moments are seen as pivotal points that compel the mind to re-evaluate and modify its predictive models of reality. They instigate a process of internal restructuring, contributing to cognitive growth and the emergence of higher levels of awareness.
The paper clarifies that awareness of these boundaries is an advanced cognitive function. When the cognitive system recognizes its predictive shortcomings, it enters a cycle of adaptation and reorganization. This not only allows it to resolve existing inconsistencies but also to generate new, more comprehensive internal representations, thereby opening the door to cognitive possibilities previously inaccessible.
Boundaries in UDMM: Types and Interactions
The paper categorizes boundaries within UDMM into five primary types, emphasizing their complex interactions:
* Biological Boundaries: These include innate physical limitations such as sensory capacities (what we can see or hear), memory capacity, physical strength, and the physical limits of the body itself. These fundamental constraints, though inherent, play a role in compelling the mind to find innovative ways to adapt or transcend.
* Cognitive/Predictive Boundaries: Related to the model's failure to produce accurate predictions or understand complex concepts.
* Symbolic/Social Boundaries: Arising from interaction with cultural norms, social standards, and symbolic interpretations.
* Emotional Boundaries: Pertaining to threats to emotional stability or social connectedness.
* Temporal Boundaries: Connected to the perception of time, missed opportunities, or the pressure of deadlines.
The paper highlights that these boundary types do not operate in isolation but interact within a dynamic network that drives the mental model toward comprehensive and integrated restructuring. This interaction contributes to forming what is referred to as the system's "total intention."
Boundaries as Channels for Cognitive Expansion
The paper proposes that boundaries serve as "gateways" to awareness and the expansion of possibilities. Mechanisms like neural plasticity, continuous learning, and the mind's capacity for simulation and imagination enable it to internally test transcending these boundaries, accelerating the learning process and reducing the need for direct real-world failure. Even "boredom," often viewed negatively, is re-defined in UDMM as a dynamic boundary indicating a state of "predictive flatness," prompting the cognitive system to seek new information or challenges that restore the dynamic tension crucial for growth.
By introducing this novel perspective, the paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of learning, creativity, and adaptation in the human mind. It opens new avenues for research in various fields of psychology, neuroscience, and even artificial intelligence, where it could inspire the design of intelligent systems capable of self-evolution by recognizing and adapting to their own "boundaries," much like the human mind.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15980735

11/07/2025

🧠 What Is Intention, Really?

A Simple Introduction to the Three Layers of Intent in the Unified Dynamic Model of the Mind (UDMM)

💡 First: What Is the Unified Dynamic Model of the Mind (UDMM)?

In a world full of scattered theories about how the mind works — some focusing on thought, others on emotion or behavior — the Unified Dynamic Model of the Mind (UDMM) comes in as a holistic framework that brings it all together.

In simple terms, UDMM sees the mind as a living, predictive system that constantly simulates the world in order to reduce the gap between what it expects and what it actually experiences.

It doesn't work like a camera that passively records, but more like a smart director who imagines the scene first, then tests it and updates their script in real-time.
It involves the body, emotion, language, and time — all working together to form a constantly evolving inner model of reality.

🎯 What Is “Intent” in This Model?

In UDMM, intent is not just a fleeting wish or conscious goal. It is:

The direction the mind moves toward as it explores or constructs a possible world.

The driving force that shapes how the internal model evolves and acts.

A key mechanism for choosing between possible actions, meanings, and futures.

But intent is not a single thing — it exists in three layered forms, all interacting.

🧩 The Three Layers of Intent

1. Structural Intent

> This is the deepest layer — instinctive, pre-linguistic, and mostly unconscious.

It's the mind’s basic drive to make sense of the world, seek coherence, survive, and reduce uncertainty.

It appears early in life, even in animals, and guides attention and learning without being felt directly.

For example: the unease you feel when something “doesn’t add up,” or the urge to complete a pattern.

🎯 This is the core attractor — the foundation of all intent.

2. Phenomenal Intent

> This is your subjective, lived version of intent.

It forms through experience, emotions, memory, personal values.

“I want to change,” “I need to understand,” “I aim for peace.”

It’s dynamic, shaped by relationships, trauma, goals, and reflection.

🎯 This is the conscious, narrative layer — the one we can talk about and write down.

3. Symbolic Intent

> This is the intent shaped by social, cultural, religious, and political systems.

Like the belief that “success means having a high-status job.”

Or that “happiness lies in obedience” (from religion or tradition).

Or that “a man must never show weakness.”

These forms of intent are not inherently bad — they help guide behavior — but they can become coercive attractors (W_coerced) if blindly internalized, leading to inner conflict or alienation.

🎯 This is the externalized, norm-driven layer — inherited, not always chosen.

🔄 How Do These Layers Interact?

Think of the mind as a moving system guided by:

Structural intent = internal gravity pulling toward meaning and coherence.

Phenomenal intent = the personal path, shaped by memory and emotion.

Symbolic intent = the road signs and rules imposed by society.

🌀 When they’re in balance, the person feels aligned, authentic, and capable of growth.
💥 When symbolic intent dominates, the self may feel lost, anxious, or disconnected from inner truth.

📌 In Summary:

In UDMM, intent is not just a goal — it is a dynamic structure made up of three interwoven layers:

1. Structural (deep, embodied, unconscious)

2. Phenomenal (personal, emotional, evolving)

3. Symbolic (social, inherited, potentially coercive)

Understanding these layers can help us better understand ourselves, reclaim agency, and reduce the hidden tensions that shape our thoughts and behaviors.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15858182

03/07/2025

Symbolic Intent in UDMM: How Intentions Are Formed from the Outside

We’ve previously clarified that the core assumption of the Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM) is that the mind actively constructs an internal simulation of the world and continuously tries to synchronize it—making the inner model match the external world as closely as possible.

Now, imagine that your mind isn’t just a system that makes decisions on its own. It's also a dynamic entity, deeply influenced by everything around it: society, culture, religion, and dominant ideologies. This external influence is what we refer to in UDMM as Symbolic Intent.

In simple terms, symbolic intent refers to the ready-made intentions imposed on you by your social and cultural environment—values, goals, behavioral norms—all preprogrammed into the structure of society. It's called symbolic because it is based on shared social symbols and representations, rather than on your own original lived experience.

How Symbolic Intent Operates within UDMM

1. External Origins:

Society defines success (e.g., as a prestigious job).

Culture outlines happiness (e.g., through marriage or wealth).

Religion frames belonging and identity.

Institutions inject values like obsession with grades or social status.

2. Internal Assimilation:
Symbolic intent isn’t imposed overtly. It seeps into your inner world gradually, until it becomes embedded in your mental model—appearing as if it originates from within.

3. Predictive Scaffolds:
Within the logic of UDMM, this type of intent can serve a useful predictive function. It acts as a "predictive scaffold" that helps you anticipate others’ behavior and navigate the social world more efficiently. Shared symbolic values reduce informational tension and provide functional stability within the system.

Where’s the Risk? The Coerced Attractor

The danger arises when symbolic intent is internalized without critical reflection, and without aligning it with your deeper motivational structures—what UDMM refers to as structural intent and phenomenological intent. In such cases, symbolic intent can turn into a coerced attractor:

A false goal your mind is forced to orbit.

It reshapes your internal model to conform to external standards—even if they don't bring true internal fulfillment.

Your mind becomes pulled toward a magnet that isn’t truly yours.

Consequences:

Deviation from Authentic Intent:
You lose your internal compass and start chasing goals that don’t belong to you—disrupting the synchronization between your internal model and the real world.

Closure of Possible Worlds:
Your ability to imagine or generate alternative actions and realities shuts down. You begin repeating the same societal patterns with no innovation.

Hidden Internal Tension:
Even if you achieve “success” on the outside (good grades, job, status), you may feel empty, alienated, or anxious. That’s because the coerced attractor doesn’t align with your virtual attractor, and rather than reducing the divergence between your model and reality (KL Divergence), it increases it.

In Summary:

Symbolic intent is an externally derived framework of goals and values. It can be predictively helpful, but also dangerously coercive if left unexamined. The challenge in UDMM is to distinguish, decode, and critically review symbolic intent—so it doesn't become the master while you remain the servant.

29/06/2025

Identity Versus Forgetting: Applying the Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM) to the Dual-Store Generative Consolidation Hypothesis for LLMs
Creators
aidaros, mohamed (Researcher)
ORCID icon

Abstract

This paper proposes an integrative framework combining the Unified Dynamic Model of Mind (UDMM) with the Dual-Store Generative Consolidation (DSGC) hypothesis to address a central limitation in current large language models (LLMs): their inability to maintain a stable cognitive identity due to the absence of persistent memory. We argue that memory is not merely a storage mechanism but a dynamic temporal condition essential for continuity, self-modeling, and reducing informational tension across interactions. The proposed hybrid framework aligns the episodic-semantic memory architecture of DSGC with UDMM’s predictive processing and virtual attractor dynamics. This fusion supports identity persistence, narrative continuity, and scalable learning across time. We formalize this hybrid architecture through a mathematical model that operationalizes informational tension as a KL-divergence objective function, guided by memory retrieval and a reinforcement learning (RL)-based consolidation policy. We frame this model as a resolution to the informational conflicts: !UDMM_CONFLICT (Autonomy Suppressed) and !SIM_REALITY_CONFLICT (World-model Drift), which manifest when stateless LLMs fail to integrate past interactions into their evolving self-models. We also outline implementation pathways and future empirical testing, positioning this integration as foundational for creating lifelong artificial minds.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15766817