:PROPERTIES:
:CREATED:  [2026-06-01 Mon]
:WEIGHT:  61
:ID:       f6a7b8c9-0d1e-2f3a-4b5c-6d7e8f90abcd
:END:
#+title: Biomimicry in Passepartout
#+filetags: :passepartout:architecture:neurosymbolic:biomimicry:p150:

**Biomimicry in Passepartout**

**What already exists (real biomimicry, not metaphor)**

| Feature | Biological analog | Implementation |
|---------+-------------------+----------------|
| Three-layer reasoning | Reptilian → limbic → neocortex | LLM (intuition) → Screamer (constrained search) → ACL2 (verified reasoning) |
| Verdict-overrides-LLM | Somatic markers override conscious deliberation | Gate outputs overrule LLM proposals, not the other way |
| Dream cycle | Sleep consolidation | gbrain dream cycle: replay and re-index daily experience offline |
| Delegate subagents | Cognitive recruitment | delegate_task — spawns specialized subprocesses for subproblems |
| Memory as two systems | Declarative vs procedural | Fact store (explicit) vs skills (implicit/procedural) |

**What is missing — and how to fill it**

***1. Peripheral nervous system (P150 slot)***

Biology does not poll. The brain does not run ~while true: check if_finger_hot()~. Dedicated low-power circuits (nociceptors, proprioceptors) monitor continuously and only signal the CNS on deviation.

Passepartout polls everything — cron output, filesystem, user messages. A P150 running 72 parallel event-driven monitors would dedicate:

- One core to "is the user typing on Signal?"
- One to "did the weekly model discovery fail?"
- One to "is ZFS ARC thrashing?"
- One to "is the test build running longer than usual?"

Each sleeps until something meaningful happens. Only then does it signal the symbolic system. Zero LLM involvement for routine monitoring.

This changes Passepartout from a system that responds to commands to a system that notices things on its own. The difference between a calculator and a research assistant.

***2. Associative activation (spreading activation)***

In the brain, activating one concept (ACL2) automatically pre-activates related concepts (SP3, proof, Lisp, verification). No clean-slate search.

Passepartout has no equivalent. Every query is a fresh search. A biomimetic fact store would:

- Pre-fetch linked pages when one is loaded
- Prime caches based on current conversation context
- Use the graph structure to predict what will be needed next

The brain does not pre-fetch — it primes — so the next thought is faster. Passepartout could prime its caches so facts most likely needed next are already loaded.

***3. Error-driven learning with local credit assignment***

The brain does not backpropagate. Errors trigger local corrections at the synapse that made the mistake.

Passepartout's Gate decisions today are either right or wrong, but nothing locally adjusts. A biomimetic Gate would:

- Track which rules fired during a wrong decision
- Locally adjust confidence scores of only those rules
- No global retrain — just the specific rule that fired

This is STDP at the symbolic level.

***4. Sleep consolidation (dream cycle upgrade)***

The gbrain dream cycle already replays daily experience. It could go further during offline cycles:

- Replay the day's decisions, identify which Gate checks were slow
- Regenerate ACL2 proof caches for rules that changed
- Prune skills that never fired (neurogenesis pruning counterpart)
- Re-index fact store based on actual usage, not static linking
- Propose new skills for repeated multi-step tasks discovered during the day

***5. Graceful degradation***

Biology has redundant fallbacks at every level. Passepartout has single points of failure.

A biomimetic approach:

- Gate offline? Fall back to cached rule set
- LLM offline? Fall back to smaller local model
- ACL2 busy? Use previously verified boundaries
- Never go silent — get slower and dumber until primary returns
- P150 cores can run degraded modes independently

**The P150's role**

The P150 (72 Tensix cores, 32GB GDDR6, QSFP-DD 800G interconnect) fills a slot nothing else in the build covers:

- Not for fast inference (2x 3090s are faster and cheaper for that)
- Not for baremetal Lisp Machine (FPGA is the right tool for tagged memory + hardware GC)
- For ambient awareness, parallel verification dispatch, fact store indexing, anomaly detection

The P150 is the system's peripheral nervous system — always-on monitoring behind the scenes.

**Revised architecture**

| Component | Role |
|-----------+------|
| 2x RTX 3090 | Fast LLM inference |
| EPYC (main cores) | ACL2, Screamer, PDS, Gate orchestration |
| P150 | Always-on temporal awareness, parallel constraint search, fact store indexing, anomaly detection |
| FPGA (future) | Stage 3 Lisp Machine (tagged memory, hardware GC) |

**Temporal awareness: explicit vs ambient**

Passepartout today reasons about time (reading logs, comparing timestamps, understanding "before X happened" from context) but has no sense of time.

Explicit (current): Reads a cron schedule, orders log events, answers "when did X happen."

Ambient (with P150): Notices the build took 3x longer than usual without being asked, flags that message frequency dropped at 3AM, anticipates the user will want the weekly report before they ask.

The P150 makes ambient temporal processing economically viable because 72 independent cores running statistical monitors consume near-zero power. Running the same monitors on the EPYC competes with ACL2 and the PDS. Running them on the 3090s wastes bandwidth on non-matrix work.

**Relationship to the Pinker/Marcus critique**

Pinker and Marcus argue that neural networks (spiking or otherwise) lack compositional syntax and systematic reasoning. A network that learns "A fires before B" through STDP has learned a temporal correlation, not a rule. It cannot distinguish causation, correlation, and coincidence.

This critique does not apply to Passepartout because Passepartout is not a pure neural network. It is a hybrid system:

| Problem | Mathematics | Where it runs |
|---------+------------+---------------|
| Temporal intuition | Statistical pattern detection | P150 |
| Compositional time (before/after/during) | Symbolic reasoning | Gate + Screamer on CPU |
| Sequential patterns from data | ANN attention | GPU |

The neuromorphic layer gives the system a sense of time. The symbolic layer gives it understanding of time. Both are necessary. Neither one replaces the other.

**What biomimicry means here**

The real gains come not from replicating brain details (spiking neurons, STDP, ion channels) but from adopting organizational principles that biology evolved:

- Specialized subsystems for different time/resource regimes (PNS vs CNS)
- Asynchronous event-driven communication instead of synchronous polling
- Redundant fallbacks at every level
- Local learning that does not require global retraining
- Offline consolidation separate from online inference
- Parallel associative retrieval rather than sequential search

Passepartout already adopts some of these. The P150 and an upgraded cron/dream cycle would add the rest.
