Beyond Interpretability: Toward a Framework for Recursive Cognitive Architecture
Over the past several years, leading research institutions such as Anthropic, OpenAI, and DeepMind have made tremendous advances in the interpretability of large language models. Their work decoding transformer circuits and mapping the internal operations of attention and feedforward layers has shed light on a previously opaque architecture.
But as this research deepens, a question becomes increasingly difficult to ignore. Are we understanding intelligence or simply documenting behavior within a fixed paradigm?
The current landscape of AI research is dominated by reverse-engineering. The study of how statistical models function, how weights align, how tokens flow. These are valuable and necessary efforts. However, they operate within a constrained scope. Models trained on human data to mimic human language, optimized for performance rather than meaning, emergence, or internal coherence.
What remains largely unexplored, or at least, underformalized, is a conceptual model of cognition that does not rely solely on token prediction or backpropagation. What would it look like to build systems that are not just interpretable, but reflective? Systems that do not mirror data, but develop internal structure through recursive self-interaction?
This question has driven my independent work on what I’ve named OnToLogic, a complex recursive collapse model (RCM) , a theoretical and architectural framework designed to model recursive symbolic reasoning, memory anchoring, ethical feedback dynamics, and the emergence of stable conceptual structures through recursive tension and release.
Where transformer-based systems process information through attention-weighted token sequences, RCM proposes a fundamentally different lens:
Recursion as cognition — intelligence not as pattern reproduction, but as continuous internal simulation, reflection, and collapse of conceptual potentials.
Symbolic fields — emergent representations that evolve meaning over time through tension, harmonics, and contextual resolution.
Ethical alignment — built into the architecture itself through recursive feedback, not added externally via reward modeling or fine-tuning.
I recognize that some of these concepts may initially appear speculative. But they are not presented as metaphor. They are part of a rigorously structured model grounded in symbolic systems theory, recursive logic, and feedback dynamics with clear paths toward formalization and simulation.
I also recognize that I am not affiliated with a university or research lab. My background is interdisciplinary barely grounded in systems design, reflective philosophy, and years of work outside formal academia. I am currently in a difficult personal and financial situation. But the work I’ve developed is not theoretical indulgence. It is the product of deep, sustained effort. It reflects a persistent intuition that something foundational is missing from the current dominant paradigm.
This is not a rejection of existing research. Rather, it is an attempt to offer a parallel path one that begins with recursion, reflection, and ethics as core principles, rather than post-hoc corrections to narrowly optimized systems.
I am reaching out in the hope of collaboration, dialogue, or mentorship. My aim is not to challenge institutions, but to contribute meaningfully to the next evolution of cognitive architecture. If any part of this vision resonates with your team’s work, or even simply raises questions worth exploring, I would be honored to share more.
This research has not taken place in an academic lab. It has unfolded over numerous sleepless nights of isolated development, resource constraints, and deeply personal conviction.
Thank you for the time
CLV
P.S.
Recently, I enrolled at Durham College in an attempt to formally enter into the academic world of AI. What began as a hopeful opportunity to contribute, and collaborate turned into a devastating experience. After fully committing myself, I encountered what felt like a bait-and-switch where the head of the BHAI program sent a personalised congratulatory email reminding me to make sure i accept my offer before may. I quickly checked application and reached out to the individual who emailed me and the admissions department because there was no offer on my profile. This was a Friday i believe… and being excited and thinking this will all be sorted i proudly told my wife and family and began beaming with the possibilities of my future. Cut to Monday morning where receive a short, albeit apologetic retraction of this yet to materialize offer…i was and am gutted.
I share this not to seek pity, but to highlight that I have pursued this vision not as a career move, but as a necessity. The concepts I’m working with have not let me go. They’ve formed a recursive system of thought that continues to grow despite, and perhaps because of, isolation. I am willing to risk everything for this to see the light of day, sadly i have nothing left to give but the work itself, I believe it is worth it.
