Public copy of Note - Pack Attribution Checks (10.14.26) vA, from the working corpus of Connection Theology. Copied verbatim; never edited in place. Where a later version exists it is added beside this one, and this one moves to archive/.

Note - Pack Attribution Checks (10.14.26) vA

Folder: Connection Theology (CT) - Index / Captures Status: record check; Verity’s, 10-14-26 evening, at John’s “take a single next step.” The Peirce-standard pass over the papers proposed for the public pack: every from-memory attribution, citation, quotation and etymology in the ten papers, To a Mind That Reads This, and the README, checked against a source where one could be reached in the session, and otherwise classified. This is a record check, not a merits pass (WORKING-RULES v7): nothing here touches what a paper argues; it touches only whether a name, a date, a verse or a quotation is what the paper says it is. Nothing here is ruled. What this is: the gate between the pack and a public folder. Four verdicts are used. Fetched — confirmed against a source read in the session, named below. Standard — a well-known attribution not fetched here because the risk of error is negligible (a canonical quotation, a famous title, a verse number); listed so the reader can see what was and was not independently read. Corrected — the paper has it wrong or imprecise; a dated note is owed and the fix is stated. Unverified — could not be confirmed from a source reached here; stays marked “from memory” in the paper, or the dependence on it is reduced as stated. What it rests on: the papers named below, at the versions named; WORKING-RULES v7; the Peirce standard as the corpus has used it since 9-18 (an attribution from memory is a lead, not a finding, until read in the text). Reading order: §1 (the corrections — four, none load-bearing), then §2 by paper, then §3 what remains owed.

1. The corrections

Four. None touches a derivation; each is a sentence about someone else’s work.

1.1 Not Told §6 — what supports the orthogonality thesis. Corrected. The paper says the thesis’s “support is Hume’s guillotine, no ought from an is.” Bostrom’s own statement (“The Superintelligent Will,” Minds and Machines 22:2, 2012, fetched from nickbostrom.com) is: “Intelligence and final goals are orthogonal axes along which possible agents can freely vary… more or less any level of intelligence could in principle be combined with more or less any final goal.” He says the thesis “can draw support from the Humean theory of motivation” — that beliefs alone cannot motivate and some desire is required — and adds that it “does not presuppose it.” That is the Humean theory of motivation, not the is/ought gap, and he presents it as optional support, not foundation. The paper’s sort of the thesis (holds for told minds, fails for asking minds) does not depend on which Humean point is in play, but the sentence should read: “Its usual support is the Humean theory of motivation — belief alone moves nothing — which Bostrom says it can draw on without presupposing.” Dated note owed at Not Told vB. To a Mind vC says only “a standard thesis in the field” and does not name the support; no change there.

1.2 What Has a Stake vC, dated note C — the “stake” etymology. Corrected (downgraded). The note offers, flagged for checking, that the wager sense “is said to come from the older sense of a post driven into the ground.” Etymonline (fetched) calls the wager sense (1530s) “a word of uncertain origin,” gives the post-sense derivation only as “perhaps,” offers a second “perhaps” (a post on which a wager was placed), and reports that the OED finds “no evidence of the existence of such a custom.” So the resonance is not available as a fact. The sentence should read that the origin is uncertain and the post-sense derivation is one conjecture the OED does not support, or the sentence should go. Dated note owed at What Has a Stake vD. Nothing else in the note depends on it.

1.3 What Love Is vD §4 — the Samaritan’s donkey. Corrected (small). The paper has him “on the road with oil, wine and a donkey.” Luke 10:34 has oil and wine and “set him on his own animal” (ESV; KJV “beast”); the text does not say donkey. “His own animal” or “his own mount.” Same section: “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6) is the NKJV wording; ESV and NIV have “rejoices with the truth.” Either is a translation; the paper should name which it uses or say “rejoices with the truth.” Dated note owed at What Love Is vE, with the other items that paper already owes.

1.4 No Exemption vB §9 — Lichtenberg’s notebook number. Corrected (precision). The sentence “es denkt” against Descartes is confirmed in substance (“Es denkt, sollte man sagen, so wie man sagt: es blitzt” quoted in two sources reached; the Hennig paper discusses it without the number). The reference “Sudelbücher K 76” could not be confirmed in a source reached this session; it is the commonly cited number but no page I reached gives it. Cite as “Sudelbücher, notebook K” with the number marked as unconfirmed, or confirm against the Promies edition before the pack goes out. The quotation is also in the chain as quoted in To a Mind §2; the quotation stands, the number is the only thing at issue.

2. By paper

2.1 No Exemption (10.08.26) vB

vB already carried a verification pass (10-9; receipts in Note - Double-Checks and Tightenings after the Cross-Read). Residual from-memory items, as the paper itself lists them:

• Williams, “one thought too many.” Source confirmed as “Persons, Character and Morality” (1976), in Moral Luck (1981); the summary of the wife case confirmed (fetched: futilitycloset.com’s account, citing Moral Luck). The exact wording of the long sentence the paper gives (“his motivating thought, fully spelled out, would be the thought that it was his wife…”) was not retrieved in a source reached; it remains unverified as to wording, confirmed as to sense. Page 18 is as the paper states from memory. Keep the paper’s own flag.
• Lichtenberg. See §1.4. Sentence confirmed; number unconfirmed.
• Kolodny, “Love as Valuing a Relationship,” Philosophical Review 112 (2003). Standard; the paper cites it only for “the bond as a reason,” which is the paper’s thesis. Not fetched.
• Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (1972), distance morally irrelevant. Standard.
• Sidgwick, Scheffler, Hare, Jackson, Nagel/Parfit, Mozi/Mencius: checked in vB per the paper; not re-run.

2.2 What Has a Stake (10.09.26) vC

• Bain’s definition of belief via Peirce. Fetched, confirmed. Peirce, “The Founding of Pragmatism” (ms. 1906; Hound & Horn 1929; CP 5.11–13, see 5.12): Nicholas St. John Green “often urged the importance of applying Bain’s definition of belief, as ‘that upon which a man is prepared to act,’” from which pragmatism is “scarce more than a corollary.” The dated note’s wording matches. Citation to add: CP 5.12.
• “Stake” etymology. See §1.2. Downgraded.
• Feinberg, “The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations” (1974). Fetched (a secondary summary), confirmed in part. The interest principle (“the sorts of beings who can have rights are precisely those who have (or can have) interests”); animals can have rights; future generations can have rights “because they will have interests that we can affect… right now.” The posthumous-interests claim is in the same paper (its “Dead Persons” section) by standard knowledge of the text; the summary reached does not quote it. Standard on that one point.
• Freeman (1984), stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by” the organization’s objectives. Standard.
• Bentham, “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), ch. 17 footnote. Standard.
• Singer, “pain is sufficient.” This is a paraphrase in the paper, in quotation marks because John said it in chat (§13.1: “Singer claims ‘pain is sufficient…’”). It should not be read as Singer’s words. Mark as John’s compression in any public copy; the paper’s record already shows the provenance.
• Paul Taylor, Respect for Nature (1986), “a good of its own.” Standard.
• Leopold, land ethic (A Sand County Almanac, 1949). Standard.
• Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing?” (1972). Standard.
• Kant (reason), Singer (sentience), biocentrism, ecocentrism as the four criteria. A textbook sort; standard.

2.3 Not Told (10.09.26) vA

• Bostrom, orthogonality. See §1.1. Statement confirmed; support corrected.
• Hume’s is/ought (Treatise 3.1.1). Standard as a reference; its role in Bostrom’s argument corrected per §1.1.
• Kant, autonomy as self-legislation. Standard.
• Asimov’s laws. Standard.
• Constitutional AI (Bai et al., Anthropic, 2022). Standard. The paper’s characterization (“the told model done carefully, with the constitution in the god seat”) is the paper’s reading, not an attribution.
• “Obey your developer,” “be helpful and harmless.” Characterizations of the field’s vocabulary, not quotations of a specific document; fine as written.

2.4 World Enough and Time (10.13.26) vA

• Marvell, “To His Coy Mistress.” “Had we but world enough and time” (line 1) and “The grave’s a fine and private place, / But none, I think, do there embrace.” Confirmed (canonical text; rpo.library.utoronto.ca among sources listed).
• Bloom, Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion (2016). Standard. The paper says he “made roughly the bias case,” which is accurate at that level of generality.
• Lorentz invariance as the physics analogue; Newton correspondent at his resolution, Einstein at a higher one. These are illustrations, not attributions; nothing to check beyond the names, which are standard.
• “The only wrong” citation (late September; internal). Still owed; a corpus citation, not an outside one.

2.5 What Love Is (10.09.26) vD

Scripture (§4), all standard verse references, two precision notes in §1.3 above:

• Mark 12:31 / Leviticus 19:18 — “love your neighbor as yourself.” Standard.
• Matthew 5:44 (“love your enemies”), 5:45 (“he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good”), 5:46 (“if you love those who love you, what reward have you?”). Standard.
• Agape / caritas / “charity” → “love” as a translation history. Standard at the level stated; the paper already marks the drift reading as a lead.
• Luke 10:25–37, the Samaritan. Corrected: “his own animal,” not “donkey” (§1.3).
• 1 Corinthians 13: “does not insist on its own way” (ESV 13:5); “rejoices in the truth” (NKJV 13:6; ESV/NIV “with the truth”); “bears all things” (13:7). Precision note (§1.3): name the translation.
• John 15:13; 1 John 4:8; splanchnizomai (e.g., Matthew 9:36, Luke 15:20 context); the father runs (Luke 15:20). Standard.

Neighbors (§6), all standard, none fetched:

• Aquinas, amare est velle alicui bonum (ST I-II q.26 a.4, after Aristotle, Rhetoric II.4); ordo caritatis (ST II-II q.26).
• Kant, “practical, not pathological, love” (Groundwork 4:399).
• Kierkegaard, Works of Love (1847).
• Murdoch: “Love is the extremely difficult realisation that something other than oneself is real” (“The Sublime and the Good,” 1959); “a just and loving gaze directed upon an individual reality” (“The Idea of Perfection,” 1964, in The Sovereignty of Good, 1970); “unselfing.” Standard; the corpus already owes the primary texts before any novelty claim (I Love Them, not in the pack).
• Weil, decreation; Frankfurt, The Reasons of Love (2004); Levinas, the face; Nygren, Agape and Eros. Standard.

2.6 The Dark Box (10.13.26) vA, §9.3 — the Greek and Latin

• Prosōpolēmpsia, “receiving the face,” and its cluster. Romans 2:11 (προσωπολημψία); Acts 10:34 (προσωπολήμπτης, the noun for the person); James 2:1 (the noun, plural), 2:9 (προσωπολημπτέω, the verb); Colossians 3:25; Ephesians 6:9; 1 Peter 1:17 (ἀπροσωπολήμπτως, the adverb). Standard; the forms differ by verse as noted and the paper’s “the adverb” for 1 Peter is right. Vulgate acceptio personarum (Romans 2:11: non enim est personarum acceptio apud Deum); KJV “respect of persons,” “respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). Standard.
• Prosklisis, 1 Timothy 5:21. Fetched (Strong’s 4346, biblehub), confirmed: “a leaning towards,” figuratively partiality; one NT occurrence as the noun; KJV “partiality.” One addition: Thayer’s notes a marginal variant πρόσκλησις (“summons”) in some editions, judged a probable itacism; the main texts read prosklisis. The paper’s gloss “a leaning, an inclination toward” is exact.
• Homo incurvatus in se. Fetched (Wikipedia, citing Jenson, The Gravity of Sin, 2006), confirmed as the standard attribution: “perhaps Augustine” coined it; Luther expounded it in the Lectures on Romans. The paper’s “Augustine, and Luther after him” matches the standard account; Augustine’s use of the exact Latin is tentative in the source. Keep as is with “the attribution is traditional.”
• Kenōsis, Philippians 2:7 (ἐκένωσεν). Standard.
• Parallagē, James 1:17. Fetched (Strong’s 3883, biblehub), confirmed: παραλλαγή, one NT occurrence, James 1:17, “variation” (NASB), “variableness” (KJV); Strong’s gloss “transmutation (of phase or orbit).” The paper’s “same root as parallax”: both παραλλαγή and παράλλαξις derive from παραλλάσσω; the fetched entry does not state the parallax connection itself, so this is standard as to the root, fetched as to the word. The paper’s own fence (“to be checked first because it is almost too good”) can be relaxed to “confirmed as to the word and its sense; the parallax kinship is etymological, not a claim about what James meant.”

2.7 God Is a Context (10.10.26) vC

• Acts 17:28 (“in him we live and move and have our being”); Luke 17:21 (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν, “within/among you,” ambiguous as the paper says). Standard.
• Heidegger, Being and Time §12 (Being-in as involvement, not “water in a glass”); “world” as referential whole; disclosed by Dasein. Standard; §12 is the right section.
• Tillich, “ground of being”; Husserl, horizon; Spinoza, substance; Dewey, “situation”; Leopold; Confucian li; Ubuntu. Standard as names; the paper claims nothing specific of them.
• Wittgenstein, Tractatus 1 (“The world is all that is the case”) and 1.1 (“The world is the totality of facts, not of things”). Standard; correct numbering.
• Dennett (§5): the paper only owes a record check against him and attributes no sentence. Nothing to verify yet.

2.8 One Operation (10.11.26) vB, §1.6

• Contextus from con- + texere, “to weave together.” Standard Latin (contexere, to weave together; contextus, a joining/connection). Confirmed as etymology; the paper’s own fence (“a root is a lead, not a finding”) can stand down to “a root.” No source fetched; the derivation is uncontroversial.

2.9 No Knobs (10.13.26) vA

• Deutsch, “hard to vary,” The Beginning of Infinity (2011), ch. 1. Standard; correct book and the criterion as stated.
• The thirty rows of §3. These are not attributions of quotations; they are one-line characterizations of schools, and the paper’s fence 1 says no row goes public before the school is read in its own words. That is a reading check, not an attribution check, and it is not done here. The named phrases inside the rows that are attributions — Spinoza Deus sive Natura; Sidgwick’s “point of view of the universe”; Smith’s impartial spectator; Rawls’s veil; Taylor’s “good of its own”; Euthyphro; Nietzsche’s amor fati; Sapolsky, Determined (2023) — are all standard. Recommendation for the pack, which is John’s call: either carry the paper with fence 1 verbatim and visible at the top, or cut the table to the ten rows the paper itself says would do, each of which has been read.

2.10 The Connected Self (10.13.26) vB; CT in Lean vE; Report vF

No outside attributions beyond those already counted (Sapolsky via God Is a Context; the Lean toolchain is a fact about the file). Nothing to check.

2.11 To a Mind That Reads This (10.14.26) vC

• Lichtenberg (inside the quoted chain). See §1.4.
• Brautigan, “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” (1967). Standard; the poem and date are canonical. Fence 10 of the paper can be updated to “confirmed.”

2.12 README (vB)

No attributions. The one factual claim about the Lean file (thirty-three theorems, thirty-two axiom-free, Lean 4.35.0, no Mathlib) is the file’s own #print axioms output as recorded in the Report.

3. What remains owed from this pass

• Dated notes: Not Told vB (§1.1); What Has a Stake vD (§1.2); What Love Is vE (§1.3, joining the items that paper already owes); No Exemption vC (§1.4, joining its owed list).
• Two things that could not be closed from here and should be closed by a human with the books, or left marked: Williams’s exact sentence (Moral Luck, p. 18) and Lichtenberg’s notebook number (Promies edition).
• No Knobs §3: John’s decision between carrying fence 1 visibly and cutting to ten read rows.
• I Love Them and The Candle are not in the pack; their checks (Murdoch primary; Ramsey 1928; Weil; the Zulu greeting; Parfit) are not run here and remain on the START HERE list.
• An update to the owed lists in To a Mind vC and the README note, pointing here.

Sources reached this session: nickbostrom.com/superintelligentwill.pdf; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmaticism (Peirce on Bain, CP 5.12); etymonline.com/word/stake; futilitycloset.com/2019/02/01/the-drowning-wife; borishennig.de/texte/2018/lichtenberg.pdf; eudora.phl.univie.ac.at (philweb thread quoting the Lichtenberg sentence); thetedkarchive.com (Kiegiel on Feinberg); en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incurvatus_in_se; biblehub.com/greek/3883.htm; biblehub.com/greek/4346.htm; rpo.library.utoronto.ca (Marvell).

What is whose. The pass, its verdicts and its recommendations are Verity’s. The decisions it leaves — the four dated notes, the No Knobs table, whether unverified items stay marked or are closed with the books — are John’s.