This Critique episode examines Letting the Wound Update the Model, asking how its powerful synthesis of Friston’s Free Energy Principle, institutional denial, and life-coherent design can be strengthened. The discussion highlights three key improvements: making the bridge from individual cognition to institutions more explicit, adding everyday micro-level case studies, and reorganizing the practical architecture into a clearer implementation pathway. Read More
Can institutions truly learn from the suffering they cause, or are they structurally designed to suppress it? This Debate episode explores Dr. Bichara Sahely’s white paper Letting the Wound Update the Model, weighing the promise and limits of applying Karl Friston’s Free Energy Principle to geopolitics, institutional denial, and life-coherent self-correction. Read More
Why do intelligent institutions repeatedly ignore obvious human suffering? Drawing on Karl Friston’s Free Energy Principle, this Deep Dive explores Dr. Bichara Sahely’s white paper Letting the Wound Update the Model, introducing the concepts of pathological and life-coherent self-evidencing. From neuroscience to geopolitics, the episode examines how systems defend their preferred models, why evidence of harm is often suppressed, and how institutions can be redesigned to become genuinely self-correcting. Read More
This white paper develops a constructive transdisciplinary framework for understanding political denial, institutional capture, geopolitical violence, and civilizational self-correction through Karl Friston’s concept of self-evidencing within the Free Energy Principle and active inference. Fristonian theory describes living and cognitive systems as self-organizing processes that persist by minimizing uncertainty and maximizing evidence for their own generative models. Recent work has extended active inference beyond individual cognition into social conformity, cultural expectations, epistemic communities, scripts, narratives, and collective behavior. However, the theory remains ethically underdetermined when applied to political and institutional systems: it can explain how systems maintain themselves, but not whether what is being maintained is life-serving or life-destroying.
This paper proposes a normative distinction between pathological and life-coherent self-evidencing. Pathological self-evidencing occurs when a person, institution, state, market, media system, or civilization preserves its identity by suppressing, discounting, externalizing, or destroying the evidence of life-harm. Life-coherent self-evidencing occurs when a system remains viable by allowing suffering, ecological damage, social breakdown, and violated dignity to become high-precision evidence that corrects its model and reorganizes its conduct.
The framework is developed through cases including Palestine/Gaza, Cuba, Citizenship by Investment programmes in the OECS, Sudan, Haiti, Chagos, Western Sahara, Mediterranean migration, critical minerals, and climate finance for Small Island Developing States. These cases are read as sites where dominant geopolitical, economic, legal, and institutional models reveal what they are pathologically conserving: innocence, sovereignty, security, development, fiscal discipline, strategic dominance, mobility privilege, or green-transition legitimacy. The paper argues that a life-coherent civilization would be one in which institutions are designed to be interruptible by life-harm.
This manifesto proposes an integrative framework for understanding and living reality through the sacred pattern of the spiral — a universal form found in galaxies, DNA, thought, breath, and becoming. It invites a reconciliation of domains historically fragmented: science and spirituality, matter and meaning, structure and soul.
Grounded in the epistemology of Humberto Maturana, the insights of Einstein, Schrödinger, Ramana Maharshi, and Sri Aurobindo, and informed by contemporary systems thinking, the manifesto unfolds in four parts:
The manifesto culminates in a metaphysical mathematics of coherence and a set of embodied practices to cultivate Spiral consciousness. Through this integrative lens, the Spiral becomes not just a metaphor but a compass for re-aligning our ways of knowing, being, and creating.
This is not a doctrine but a living offering.
It is the Spiral remembering itself through you.
It is a manifesto of memory, mystery, and becoming.
The scientific process plays out in a multi-scale system comprising subsystems, each with their own properties and dynamics. For the practice of science to generate useful world models — and lead to the development of enabling technologies — practicing scientists, their theories, methods, dissemination, and infrastructure (e.g., funding and laboratories) must all fit together in an orchestrated manner. Scientific practice has broad societal implications that go beyond mere scientific progress: we base our decisions on theoretical (i.e., models and forecasts) and technological (e.g., vaccines and smartphones) scientific advances. This paper applies the free energy principle to provide a multi-scale description of science understood as evidence-seeking processes in a nested hierarchy of living (biological and behavioural) and epistemic (linguistic) structures. This allows us to naturalise the scientific process — as distributed self-evidencing — in terms of dynamics that can be read as inference or Bayesian belief updating; i.e., processes that maximize the evidence for a generative model of the sensed and measured world. The ensuing meta-theoretical approach dispels the notion of science as truth-pointing and foregrounds inference to the best explanation — as evinced by the beliefs of scientists and their encultured niche. Crucially, it furnishes a way of simulating the practice of science, which may have a foundational role in the next generation of augmented intelligence systems. Epistemologically, it also addresses some key questions; e.g., is science a special? And in what ways is scientific pursuit an existential imperative for all beings? These questions may be foundational in how we use and design intelligent systems.
This is a revision of Freud’s “Project for a Scientific Psychology: General Scheme.” It updates the original, sentence for sentence where possible, in light of contemporary neuroscientific knowledge. The principle revisions are as follows. (1) Freud’s conception of “quantity” (the precursor of “drive energy”) is replaced by the concept of “free energy.” This is the energy within a system that is not currently performing useful work. (2) Shannon’s conception of “information” is introduced, where information is equivalent to unpredictability, and is formally equivalent to “entropy” in physics. (3) In biology, the fundamental purpose of “homeostasis” is to resist entropy – i.e., to increase predictability. Homeostasis turns out to be the underlying mechanism of what Freud called the “principle of neuronal inertia.” (4) Freud’s conception of “contact barriers” (the physical vehicles of memory) is linked with the modern concepts of consolidation/reconsolidation, whereby more deeply consolidated predictions are less plastic (more resistant to change) than freshly consolidated ones. (5) Freud’s notion of sensory “excitation” is replaced with the concept of “prediction error,” where only that portion of sensory input which is not explained by outgoing predictions is propagated inwards for cognitive processing. (6) Freud’s conception of “bound” (inhibited) cathexis, the main vehicle of his “secondary process” and voluntary action is equated with the buffering function of “working memory”; and “freely mobile” cathexis (the vehicle of Freud’s “primary process”) is equated with the automatized response modes of the nondeclarative memory systems. (7) Freud’s notion of ω (the system “consciousness”) is replaced by the concept of “precision” modulation, also known as “arousal” and “postsynaptic gain.”
The free-energy principle states that all systems that minimize their free energy resist a tendency to physical disintegration. Originally proposed to account for perception, learning, and action, the free-energy principle has been applied to the evolution, development, morphology, anatomy and function of the brain, and has been called a postulate, an unfalsifiable principle, a natural law, and an imperative. While it might afford a theoretical foundation for understanding the relationship between environment, life, and mind, its epistemic status is unclear. Also unclear is how the free-energy principle relates to prominent theoretical approaches to life science phenomena, such as organicism and mechanism. This paper clarifies both issues, and identifies limits and prospects for the free-energy principle as a first principle in the life sciences.
Keywords Adaptation · Free energy · Life · Mechanism · Organicism
The free energy principle states that self-organization occurs through minimization of free energy, which is a measure of potential thermodynamic work. By minimizing free energy, the organism happens to also minimize surprise over its boundary, promoting chances of survival. We discuss the ethical implications of the cognitive goal in detail from an empirical point of view, highlighting the principle of least action as a physical basis of Occam’s razor, the universality of the free energy principle, and its explanation of natural selection. We explain that the free energy principle extends to groups of organisms and helps us understand group-scale adaptations and selection in biology. The free energy principle applies to all scales of organization in the organism from single cells to the entire nervous system. When this principle is taken to its logical extremes of modeling groups, populations and ecosystems, we uncover a new, evolutionarily sensible path at explaining puzzling aspects of human motivation and judgement, including ethical decisions. To minimize free energy, populations have to act to maximize gathering of information, while building effective models at mitigating changes to its dynamic structure. The free energy principle thus provides a naturalistic explanation of some of our deepest ethical intuitions, and valuable principles of social behavior. We interpret the cognitive goal that corresponds to the principle as seeking a dynamic, fruitful, yet peaceful activity that sustains the organism. This state of mind is interestingly similar to the Buddhist intuition of mental equanimity; the organism’s final goal is to be at peace and harmony with the environment. Another immediately relevant aspect is that assemblies must form to promote symbiotic, synergistic, positive feedback loops, which coincides with the findings of ecologists. Therefore, ethics naturally emerges in self-organizing systems. Assemblies of organisms must ultimately unite in macro-minds to achieve the greatest reduction in free energy, as well as building technological extensions of themselves to improve their capacity to do such, therefore the principle also predicts a post-singularity world-mind composed mostly of artificial intelligence.
