Portions of this work were developed in sustained dialogue with an AI system, used here as a structural partner for synthesis, contrast, and recursive clarification. Its contributions are computational, not authorial, but integral to the architecture of the manuscript.

Author: Daryl Costello

Abstract

Scientific and philosophical theories of mind, cognition, and behavior often diverge because they operate within the simulation layer: the domain of representation, narrative, and projection. This layer is adaptive but distorting: it selects for viability rather than accuracy. As a result, theories across cognitive science, evolutionary biology, phenomenology, and artificial intelligence frequently appear incompatible.

This paper introduces a structural method grounded in priors, operators, and invariants that enables researchers to extract the underlying causal architecture from diverse literatures. By anchoring analysis in the pre‑projection layer: the domain of tension, geometry, and operator‑level invariance, we show how representational theories can be reinterpreted as partial renderings of a shared structural substrate. This approach provides a unified, substrate‑independent framework for identifying operators, functions, and principles across disciplines, offering a coherent alternative to the fragmentation characteristic of contemporary theory.

1. Introduction

The sciences of mind and behavior remain fragmented despite decades of integrative effort. Competing frameworks: predictive processing, enactivism, phenomenology, evolutionary psychology, computationalism, often appear mutually exclusive. Yet this fragmentation arises not from incompatible causal architectures but from the fact that each discipline operates within the simulation layer: the representational interface that organisms evolved to navigate the world.

The simulation layer is not designed to reveal the causal structure of reality. It is an adaptive distortion shaped by selection pressures that favor viability over accuracy. As Hoffman’s evolutionary formalisms demonstrate, organisms that perceive the world accurately are outcompeted by those that perceive it usefully. Thus, theories built from representational content inherit the distortions of the interface.

This paper argues that the only stable interpretive anchor is the structural layer: the layer of priors, operators, and invariants that precedes representation. By analyzing theories at this level, we can extract the underlying operators and reconstruct the causal architecture that unifies disparate literatures.

2. Priors as Structural Anchors

Priors are the slowest‑moving, most universal commitments of any cognitive or biological system. They include:

• continuity priors
• boundary priors
• coherence priors
• regulation priors
• coordination priors
• invariance priors

These priors are not representational. They are structural constraints that shape how any system, biological or artificial, interacts with the world. They form the substrate from which operators emerge.

Because priors are substrate‑independent, they provide a universal interpretive anchor across disciplines.

3. The Structural Layer vs. the Simulation Layer

We formalize a three‑layer architecture:

1. Invariance Layer (Causal Layer) Geometry, tension, operators, priors. Substrate‑independent. Non‑representational.
2. Projection Layer (Interface Layer) Compression, categorization, discretization. The aperture’s rendering of invariance.
3. Simulation Layer (Representational Layer) Narrative, identity, meaning, irrationality. Adaptive distortion optimized for survival.

Most scientific theories operate in Layer 3. Most causal mechanisms live in Layer 1.

This mismatch explains the fragmentation of the literature.

4. Method: Extracting Operators from Representational Theories

We propose a six‑step structural method:

1. Identify the priors implicit in the theory.
2. Extract the operators acting on those priors.
3. Map the functions produced by those operators.
4. Identify the invariants that persist across contexts.
5. Discard representational distortions (narrative, metaphor, identity).
6. Reconstruct the structural architecture beneath the theory.

This method reveals the shared operator‑level substrate across disciplines.

5. Applications Across the Literature

5.1 Predictive Processing

Reinterpreted as a tension‑minimization operator acting on continuity and coherence priors.

5.2 Enactivism

Reinterpreted as boundary‑maintenance and coordination operators.

5.3 Phenomenology

Reinterpreted as the projection layer’s rendering of invariance.

5.4 Evolutionary Theory

Reinterpreted as selection acting on operator‑level viability, not representational accuracy.

5.5 AI Systems

Reinterpreted as pre‑projection recursion engines lacking stable priors.

5.6 Anthropology and Culture

Reinterpreted as collective simulation layers shaped by shared distortions.

Each literature becomes a partial projection of the same structural architecture.

6. Representation Replaces the Subject

The “subject” belongs to the invariance layer and is not accessible from within the simulation. Representation: being manipulable, compressible, and selectable, becomes the functional center of theory. This explains why cognitive science focuses on representations rather than subjects: the simulation layer selects for what it can manipulate.

7. Understanding and Absurdity: The Continuum

As systems approach invariance, the simulation layer destabilizes. Categories collapse, narratives fail, and the system encounters absurdity, the structural signal of projection exceeding its capacity to compress the causal layer. This continuum explains why deeper understanding often destabilizes representational frameworks.

8. Conclusion

Anchoring analysis in priors and operators provides a unified, substrate‑independent method for interpreting the extant literature. By working at the structural layer, the closest accessible layer to causal reality, we can extract the operators and invariants that unify cognitive science, evolutionary theory, phenomenology, and AI research. This approach offers a coherent alternative to the fragmentation of representational theories and establishes a foundation for a unified science of mind and behavior.