Latest

Two of biology's most ambitious theorists converged on the same strange idea: that active inference doesn't stop at the brain. When the FEP meets basal cognition, every cell becomes a tiny prediction machine.

Michael Levin's morphogenetic fields, reframed in information geometry: bioelectric patterns across cell populations act as coherence manifolds that shape organism form from the bottom up.

Michael Levin isn't claiming cells are conscious. He's claiming they're cognitive — that they solve problems, store memories, and pursue goals using bioelectrical signals. That distinction is turning developmental biology upside down.

Maturana and Varela's insight was radical: living systems don't receive meaning from the world, they produce it through the same circular processes that keep them alive. Meaning-making and self-making are the same thing.

Autopoiesis offers a non-arbitrary criterion for moral consideration: systems that maintain their own organization. The implication is that the ethical question isn't "can it suffer?" but "does it self-organize?" — and that matters for how we treat AI.

Autopoiesis says living systems continuously produce themselves. Active inference says systems minimize free energy to maintain their boundaries. These two frameworks converge in surprising ways — and together may define what it means to persist.

Autopoiesis — self-production — was coined for biological cells. Niklas Luhmann's radical move was to apply it to society: legal systems, economies, and science are self-reproducing networks of communication, not collections of individuals. People are the environment, not the components.