This statement explores the limits of machine interpretation and its ethical considerations, emphasizing methodological boundaries.
Boundaries of Machine Interpretation is a bilingual, versioned authorial statement set by Ivan Kotov. Version 0.2 consolidates six connected formulations: the future as a process; doubt versus numerical uncertainty; forgetting versus data loss; empathy versus optimization; subjective experience versus telemetry; and soul as open-ended self-reflection. The central boundary is methodological: a measurable technical proxy must not be silently promoted into a human, relational, or phenomenal status. A probability distribution does not by itself establish doubt; deletion or retrieval failure is not identical to forgetting; optimization does not constitute empathy or authorize intervention; and successful capture, transmission, or parsing of telemetry proves neither the presence nor the absence of subjective experience. In engineering terms, a confidence score, a deleted database row, a controller action, and a parsed sensor stream remain technical events until separate evidence and authority justify a stronger interpretation. The deposit preserves authoritative statement files, publication translations, canonical precedence, provenance and supersession records, a human-readable PDF, machine-readable JSON and JSON-LD, manifests, and SHA-256 checksums. The designated AUTHORIAL_* and CANONICAL_* files control wording according to CANONICAL_PRECEDENCE; translations and explanatory layers support discovery but do not override those authorities. This work does not claim scientific proof of consciousness, soul, empathy, doubt, or forgetting; does not attribute or deny these states to any particular human, animal, or digital system; and does not treat telemetry, model confidence, storage state, or optimization success as an ontological test.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ivan Kotov (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: