Bioelectric signals are increasingly recognized as a fundamental “language” by which cells communicate to coordinate growth, regeneration, and overall function. Recent developmental and regenerative biology research shows that tissues and organs rely on carefully maintained electrical gradients (membrane potentials, ion flows, and gap junction patterns). At the theoretical level, the Free Energy Principle frames cells and tissues as Bayesian inference machines, perpetually updating their internal states to match environmental cues and minimize energetic “surprises.”
However, the contemporary environment is saturated with anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMFs)—emanating from Wi-Fi routers, mobile phones, and now 5G networks. These exogenous signals can be viewed as “entropic waste”: additional, non-biological radiation introducing noise into the system. Studies document a range of possible biological impacts, including:
- Developmental issues, particularly prenatal growth and fetal brain alterations.
- Reproductive challenges, such as decreased sperm motility and changes in ovarian function.
- Neurological or cognitive impairments seen in animal models and some human correlational data.
- Potential carcinogenicity, with both laboratory and epidemiological evidence suggesting heightened risks for certain tumors.
By injecting unpredictable perturbations into the bioelectric circuits, EMFs may create what is called “bioelectric dissonance.” Cells normally rely on stable voltage gradients that act like Bayesian “priors” to organize physiology. But with chronic, high-level, or improperly modulated EMF exposure, the ion channels and electrical junctions responsible for these “priors” can be thrown off balance. This increases prediction error, which can cascade into oxidative stress, misregulated gene expression, and a breakdown of normal tissue patterning.
From a public health and policy perspective, growing evidence suggests that regulating exposure—especially among vulnerable populations like pregnant women, children, and people who already experience electromagnetic hypersensitivity—may warrant serious attention. Future research combining bioelectric measurements, computational modeling of the Free Energy Principle, and thorough EMF dosimetry is needed to pin down precise cause-and-effect relationships and guide safer technology design.
In essence, bioelectric dissonance highlights how modern electromagnetic pollution could disturb the very language that cells use to maintain life’s delicate balance. By applying frameworks like the Free Energy Principle, scientists aim to elucidate the subtle ways that EMF-driven noise undermines the body’s innate ability to manage uncertainty, pointing toward strategies that restore electrical harmony in our technology-saturated world.
Life, its origin, and its distribution: A perspective from the Conway-Kochen Theorem and the Free Energy Principle – View PDF
“We find it hard to recognize our cognitive kin at unfamiliar spatio-temporal scales or operating in unfamiliar problem spaces.”
—Excerpt from the paper
Expanding Our View of “Life”
For generations, scientists have asked, “How did life begin on Earth?”—and the conversation often started with the chemistry of primeval soup, the formation of self-replicating molecules, and the rise of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). While those questions remain crucial, recent work across cognitive science, quantum physics, and complex systems challenges a once-simple picture.
Two ideas drive this emerging shift:
- The Conway–Kochen theorem (CK), which implies that even fundamental physical processes carry a kernel of autonomy—a kind of “freedom” that defies purely deterministic explanations.
- The Free Energy Principle (FEP), which posits that any self-maintaining system—from a bacterial cell to the human brain—can be understood as minimizing its own uncertainty about the environment (i.e., performing a form of Bayesian inference).
Together, CK and FEP raise a provocative possibility: that “life” and “cognition” might be more universal and intertwined than we ever guessed. If so, it could transform our understanding of the Origin of Life (OOL) from a purely biochemical challenge to a question of recognizing—and communicating with—systems that display agency, no matter how alien they appear.
The Traditional View: Life as a Chemical Puzzle
- Chemistry First. Historically, the OOL problem was “solved” by discovering how the right molecular components—amino acids, nucleotides, lipids—could self-assemble into autocatalytic, self-sustaining processes. Researchers scoured geothermal vents, tide pools, and even extraterrestrial materials (meteorites) for evidence.
- LUCA as a Baseline. The identification of a Last Universal Common Ancestor suggests that all of today’s organisms, from archaea to humans, share a deep biochemical toolkit. Knowing that LUCA existed helps us bound the question of what the earliest “life-forms” might have been like.
This “chemistry-first” perspective has yielded enormous progress. Yet it leaves some mysteries: What, exactly, makes a pile of chemicals into a “living system”? Metabolism, reproduction, compartmentalization? Or something else?
The Cognitive Turn: Conway–Kochen and Free Energy Principle
Conway–Kochen: Fundamental Autonomy
In quantum mechanics, the Conway–Kochen theorem (CK) shows that particles (or any fundamental entities described by quantum theory) cannot be fully determined by “hidden variables.” In non-technical terms, it suggests a degree of inherent freedom in the behavior of these entities. If you extend this reasoning beyond elementary particles to larger systems—like molecules, cells, or entire biospheres—some measure of local autonomy could exist at all scales.
This challenges a purely mechanistic, clockwork universe. Instead, it edges us toward an understanding that local indeterminism and agency might be woven into the fabric of physical reality.
In other words, the “free will” or “choice” we observe in living systems might be a reflection—or an amplification—of fundamental quantum-level freedoms.
The Free Energy Principle: Life as a Bayesian Inference Machine
Originally formulated in theoretical neuroscience by Karl Friston, the Free Energy Principle (FEP) states that any system maintaining itself over time does so by minimizing its variational free energy, i.e., reducing surprises about its environment. Put differently, living systems act like Bayesian inference machines:
- They make predictions about incoming sensory data (visual signals, chemical gradients, etc.).
- They measure “error” between those predictions and real-world feedback.
- They update their internal states or actions to reduce that error—enhancing their chance of survival.
This formalism turns “being alive” into a process of continuous sense-making. But the FEP can be applied to much more than brains: any persistent system—a cell, an ecosystem, or even a star—can be described as acting to minimize free energy. The big implication is that the distinction between “living” and “non-living” might not be sharp.
Rethinking Life and Cognition
The Spectrum of Agency
If every stable entity is, in some sense, an agent performing Bayesian inference, then “cognition” may not be restricted to warm-blooded animals (or even to biology). Bacterial colonies, slime molds, or even synthetic “xenobots” made from frog cells can exhibit problem-solving and memory-like behaviors. Indeed, some argue that cells are “cognitive”—they perceive, decide, and act in ways that optimize survival and reproduction.
This shift decouples “cognition” from a human- or mammal-centric worldview. Suddenly, tiny microbes or vast cosmic webs might be fair game for cognitive analysis.
Do We Need Replication or Metabolism Anymore?
Traditionally, the hallmark definitions of life require metabolism (energy flow, chemistry) and replication (passing on genetic information). But if we define life in terms of active inference—the ability to reduce internal uncertainties—then purely informational or computational systems might qualify as well, whether or not they use DNA or conventional metabolism.
- Could a computer system with robust self-preservation also be “alive” under FEP?
- How about a stable chemical structure that doesn’t replicate but does maintain itself in some environment?
These questions stretch the meaning of “life,” but they also open possibilities for discovering (or synthesizing) new forms of agency that defy our traditional labels.
The Fermi Paradox: A Whole New Spin
“Where Is Everybody?” Or Are We Just Not Looking Correctly?
The Fermi Paradox is the famous conundrum that, if life is widespread in the universe, we should have seen evidence of advanced civilizations by now—yet we haven’t (or so we think).
The new perspective: If truly any system can be an agent, and if intelligence is simply the capacity to minimize free energy in novel, complex ways, then alien intelligences need not look anything like humans. They might:
- Live at timescales too slow or fast for us to notice,
- Use channels of communication (e.g., gravitational distortions, subtle cosmic-ray patterns) we have no instruments to detect,
- Lack anything we’d call “technology” in a human sense, yet be highly organized and self-aware in their own domain.
The Drake Equation Under FEP
The Drake Equation traditionally estimates the number of communicative extraterrestrial civilizations by multiplying factors like star formation rate, fraction of stars with habitable planets, fraction of those that develop life, intelligence, and technology, etc. That equation assumes that extraterrestrial civilizations behave in ways we’d recognize.
But according to FEP (and the CK theorem’s suggestion of universal agency), advanced “Bayesian systems” might not produce radio signals or Dyson spheres at all. They may exist as hyper-efficient free-energy minimizers on cosmic scales—functionally invisible to the sort of searches we conduct.
Hence, the number of alien intelligences could be huge, yet their detectability remains unknown. We might be “bathed” in signals that we label “natural” because we simply lack the interpretive frameworks to see them as communication.
Communicating with Alien Agents—Even on Earth
“We find it hard to recognize our cognitive kin at unfamiliar spatio-temporal scales.”
This challenge extends beyond exobiology to our own planet. From microbial communities to eusocial insect colonies, from giant fungal networks to the synergy of organs within our own bodies, Earth is already rife with “alien” minds we struggle to understand.
Evolutionary Firmware and Mind-Blindness
Humans evolved to notice certain scales, speeds, and signals—visual light frequencies, body language of large mammals, etc. We are blind to most chemical communications among bacteria, and we usually don’t interpret the electrical signals in plants as “talk.” Our cognitive biases form filters that might block us from seeing intelligence in unusual or “invisible” forms.
Augmented Reality: A Possible Bridge
The paper suggests we may need new tools—akin to how telescopes expanded our senses—such as augmented reality interfaces or sensor arrays that render hidden signals into human-perceptible modes. This would let us:
- See or hear the “language” of microbes,
- Map out the “problems” ant colonies or slime molds solve,
- Potentially talk to entire ecosystems if we identify the right channels.
Eventually, the same approach might help us decode non-human intelligence—whether synthetic AI or hypothetical cosmic-scale Bayesians.
Synthetic Biology and the Next Frontier
As synthetic biology and bio-robotics advance, we will likely create living systems that have no evolutionary lineage in the standard sense. They might be a mashup of electronics, organic cells, quantum bits, or digital logic. If these systems maintain themselves and solve problems in real time, should they be considered alive? The Free Energy Principle would say: They might be, functionally, Bayesian agents—so yes, in some sense, “alive.”
Implications:
- Bioethics & Governance: How do we handle “new life forms” that emerge from labs?
- Biological Boundaries: If advanced artificial systems can cognitively navigate their world, the boundary between “machine” and “organism” becomes increasingly blurred.
The Boundary Problem: Origin of Life as a Reference-Frame Issue
Another subtle but crucial theme is the notion of boundaries. According to the paper, the “origin of life” is also the moment a system and its environment become distinct. But from the FEP perspective, any self-organizing boundary is an “origin of life”—whether it’s a cell membrane, a conceptual boundary, or a planetary atmosphere that self-regulates (Gaia hypothesis, anyone?).
This implies that what we call “life’s origin” might just be an observer-dependent event: once a system is recognized (or recognizes itself) as a distinct agent, that is its OOL. The paper even suggests that, for any observer, the only “other” intelligence that is guaranteed to exist is the observer’s total environment—which itself can be seen as a Bayesian super-agent from another vantage.
Conclusion: The Future of OOL Research and Beyond
- Redefining Life: We’re moving beyond the idea that “life” is just a matter of carbon chemistry plus replication. Instead, life is entangled with cognition, with quantum-level freedoms, and with universal processes of free-energy minimization.
- Blurring Boundaries: The classical lines between “living vs. non-living,” “biological vs. synthetic,” and “Earthly vs. extraterrestrial” are no longer as firm. All organized matter has the potential to exhibit some level of agency.
- Recognizing the Incomprehensible: Many forms of intelligence—on Earth or elsewhere—may be invisible to our standard observation strategies. We may need new conceptual frameworks, instruments, and augmented-reality style translators to communicate across radically different perceptual and goal spaces.
- The Real Fermi Paradox: Far from being alone, we may simply be unable to perceive or interpret cosmic agencies that do not speak our language (or use anything like it).
- Next Steps:
- Empirical Approaches: Develop sensors and AI that can spot signs of self-organization at any scale—be it in petri dishes or exoplanet atmospheres.
- Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Bring together physicists, microbiologists, cognitive scientists, and philosophers to refine our definitions and detection methods.
- Philosophical/Existential: Prepare for the possibility that agency and cognition permeate reality in ways we’ve barely begun to imagine.
“Life, cognition, and complexity are both inseparable and ubiquitous.”
In short, the paper makes a bold case that the universe is brimming with systems that, at least minimally, “think” or “decide.” Understanding them demands we broaden our minds far beyond the chemical recipes of Earth’s past. If this view is correct, it upends how we see ourselves, our planet, and the cosmos—revealing that maybe we were never truly alone, only incapable of seeing the myriad forms of life all around us.
Further Reading & Reflection
- Origins of Life Beyond Chemistry: Look up work by Sara Walker, Addy Pross, and others rethinking the role of information in the emergence of life.
- CK Theorem in Quantum Mechanics: John Conway and Simon Kochen’s “Free Will Theorem” and “Strong Free Will Theorem” for insights into local indeterminism.
- Free Energy Principle: Karl Friston’s body of work, bridging neuroscience, physics, and complex systems to unify how all self-organizing systems minimize surprise.
- Synthetic Biology & Xenobots: Exciting examples of how lab-created “organisms” challenge our ideas of morphological identity, agency, and “life.”
Ultimately, what the paper articulates is a future in which biology, physics, and cognitive science converge. The quest to understand life’s origin transitions from a puzzle of molecules to a mystery of active inference and universal agency. And that might just be the key to unlocking cosmic forms of life we never dreamed could exist.
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this deep-dive, share it with friends or colleagues—because the conversation around life’s origins, agency, and the future of intelligence has only just begun.
