Recent studies reveal striking representational alignment between artificial neural networks (ANNs) and biological brains, leading to proposals that all sufficiently capable systems converge on universal representations of reality. We argue that this claim of Universality is premature. We introduce the Umwelt Representation Hypothesis, which proposes that alignment arises not from convergence toward a single global optimum but from overlap in the ecological constraints under which systems develop. We review empirical evidence showing that representational differences between species, individuals, and ANNs are systematic and adaptive, which is difficult to reconcile with Universality. Finally, we reframe ANN model comparison as a method for mapping clusters of alignment in the ecological constraint space rather than as a search for a single optimal world model.
Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere: An Experimentally-Grounded Framework for Understanding Diverse Bodies and Minds
Synthetic biology and bioengineering provide the opportunity to create novel embodied cognitive systems (otherwise known as minds) in a very wide variety of chimeric architectures combining evolved and designed material and software. These advances are disrupting familiar concepts in the philosophy of mind, and require new ways of thinking about and comparing truly diverse intelligences, whose composition and origin are not like any of the available natural model species. In this Perspective, I introduce TAME-Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere-a framework for understanding and manipulating cognition in unconventional substrates. TAME formalizes a non-binary (continuous), empirically-based approach to strongly embodied agency. TAME provides a natural way to think about animal sentience as an instance of collective intelligence of cell groups, arising from dynamics that manifest in similar ways in numerous other substrates. When applied to regenerating/developmental systems, TAME suggests a perspective on morphogenesis as an example of basal cognition. The deep symmetry between problem-solving in anatomical, physiological, transcriptional, and 3D (traditional behavioral) spaces drives specific hypotheses by which cognitive capacities can increase during evolution. An important medium exploited by evolution for joining active subunits into greater agents is developmental bioelectricity, implemented by pre-neural use of ion channels and gap junctions to scale up cell-level feedback loops into anatomical homeostasis. This architecture of multi-scale competency of biological systems has important implications for plasticity of bodies and minds, greatly potentiating evolvability. Considering classical and recent data from the perspectives of computational science, evolutionary biology, and basal cognition, reveals a rich research program with many implications for cognitive science, evolutionary biology, regenerative medicine, and artificial intelligence.
Cognition all the way down 2.0: neuroscience beyond neurons in the diverse intelligence era
This paper formalizes biological intelligence as search efficiency in multi-scale problem spaces, aiming to resolve epistemic deadlocks in the basal “cognition wars” unfolding in the Diverse Intelligence research program. It extends classical work on symbolic problem-solving to define a novel problem space lexicon and search efficiency metric. Construed as an operationalization of intelligence, this metric is the decimal logarithm of the ratio between the cost of a random walk and that of a biological agent. Thus, the search efficiency measures how many orders of magnitude of dissipative work an agentic policy saves relative to a maximal-entropy search strategy. Empirical models for amoeboid chemotaxis and barium-induced planarian head regeneration show that, under conservative (i.e., intelligence-underestimating) assumptions, even ‘simple’ organisms are from two-hundred- to sextillion-fold more efficient in problem space exploration. In this sense, the deep insights of neuroscience are not about neurons per se, but about the policies and patterns of physics and mathematics that function as a kind of “cognitive glue” binding parts toward higher levels of collective intelligence in wholes of highly diverse composition and origin. Therefore, our synthesis argues that the “mark of the cognitive” is perhaps better sought in the measurable efficiency with which living systems, from single cells to complex organisms, traverse energy and information gradients to tame combinatorial explosions-one problem space at a time.
Systems of Global Governance in the Era of Human-Machine Convergence
Technology is increasingly shaping our social structures and is becoming a driving force in altering human biology. Besides, human activities already proved to have a significant impact on the Earth system which in turn generates complex feedback loops between social and ecological systems. Furthermore, since our species evolved relatively fast from small groups of hunter-gatherers to large and technology-intensive urban agglomerations, it is not a surprise that the major institutions of human society are no longer fit to cope with the present complexity. In this note we draw foundational parallelisms between neurophysiological systems and ICT-enabled social systems, discussing how frameworks rooted in biology and physics could provide heuristic value in the design of evolutionary systems relevant to politics and economics. In this regard we highlight how the governance of emerging technology (i.e. nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science), and the one of climate change both presently confront us with a number of connected challenges. In particular: historically high level of inequality; the co-existence of growing multipolar cultural systems in an unprecedentedly connected world; the unlikely reaching of the institutional agreements required to deviate abnormal trajectories of development. We argue that wise general solutions to such interrelated issues should embed the deep understanding of how to elicit mutual incentives in the socio-economic subsystems of Earth system in order to jointly concur to a global utility function (e.g. avoiding the reach of planetary boundaries and widespread social unrest). We leave some open questions on how techno-social systems can effectively learn and adapt with respect to our understanding of geopolitical complexity.
Embracing the suboptimal organization of the human brain
Human brain architecture is guiding brain-inspired artificial intelligence (AI) and has been treated as an optimal template, whose deviations could mark different psychiatric and neurological conditions. We argue this premise is wrong: under any single goal (e.g., minimal wiring cost or maximal communication efficiency), the human connectome is suboptimal. Instead, its organization reflects multi-objective trade-offs navigated over evolution and development under biological and environmental constraints. For psychopathology, atypical trajectories are not distances from an ideal brain but reweighted compromises in the same trade-off space. For neuro-AI, directly duplicating the brain’s connectivity risks copying its irrelevant compromises. Treating brains and models as products of multi-objective optimization and co-tuning relevant objectives offers a more powerful framework for interpreting clinical phenotypes and designing next-generation AI.
Are biological systems poised at criticality?
Many of life's most fascinating phenomena emerge from interactions among many elements--many amino acids determine the structure of a single protein, many genes determine the fate of a cell, many neurons are involved in shaping our thoughts and memories. Physicists have long hoped that these collective behaviors could be described using the ideas and methods of statistical mechanics. In the past few years, new, larger scale experiments have made it possible to construct statistical mechanics models of biological systems directly from real data. We review the surprising successes of this "inverse" approach, using examples form families of proteins, networks of neurons, and flocks of birds. Remarkably, in all these cases the models that emerge from the data are poised at a very special point in their parameter space--a critical point. This suggests there may be some deeper theoretical principle behind the behavior of these diverse systems.
The lost art of mathematical modelling
We provide a critique of mathematical biology in light of rapid developments in modern machine learning. We argue that out of the three modelling activities – (1) formulating models; (2) analysing models; and (3) fitting or comparing models to data – inherent to mathematical biology, researchers currently focus too much on activity (2) at the cost of (1). This trend, we propose, can be reversed by realising that any given biological phenomenon can be modelled in an infinite number of different ways, through the adoption of a pluralistic approach, where we view a system from multiple, different points of view. We explain this pluralistic approach using fish locomotion as a case study and illustrate some of the pitfalls – universalism, creating models of models, etc. – that hinder mathematical biology. We then ask how we might rediscover a lost art: that of creative mathematical modelling.
Understanding Artificial Neural Networks: Mysterianism about Known Mechanism is Mysticism
Mysterianism is the idea that human cognition, mind, cannot be understood. Taking this concept and applying it to known mechanism — such that claims are made that we do not know how engineered systems, such as artificial neural networks (ANNs), work, or that they constitute black boxes that we can only open with difficulty — is inappropriate at best and malicious at worst. We do know the mechanistic structure of such models because we designed and built them. We also do know their functional role (what they are for) as well as the mathematical function they are asked to approximate (map inputs to target outputs). Because mysterianist beliefs about known systems, such as ANNs, are often expressed, scientists need to sit up and take notice. We provide an error theory as to what is going on to help unpick this metatheoretical blunder. Ultimately, the problem is that 'understanding' is not a technical term in these cases: the word is co-opted for a specific narrative to sell 'artificial intelligence' through mystification. All computational systems, from pendulums to databases, will behave in ways we cannot predict or control — this is not a unique property of ANNs — and experts do indeed grasp the computational properties of these systems nonetheless.
Understanding Artificial Neural Networks: Mysterianism about Known Mechanism is Mysticism
Mysterianism is the idea that human cognition, mind, cannot be understood. Taking this concept and applying it to known mechanism — such that claims are made that we do not know how engineered systems, such as artificial neural networks (ANNs), work, or that they constitute black boxes that we can only open with difficulty — is inappropriate at best and malicious at worst. We do know the mechanistic structure of such models because we designed and built them. We also do know their functional role (what they are for) as well as the mathematical function they are asked to approximate (map inputs to target outputs). Because mysterianist beliefs about known systems, such as ANNs, are often expressed, scientists need to sit up and take notice. We provide an error theory as to what is going on to help unpick this metatheoretical blunder. Ultimately, the problem is that 'understanding' is not a technical term in these cases: the word is co-opted for a specific narrative to sell 'artificial intelligence' through mystification. All computational systems, from pendulums to databases, will behave in ways we cannot predict or control — this is not a unique property of ANNs — and experts do indeed grasp the computational properties of these systems nonetheless.
The Global Brain Algorithm
<p>This is a collection of explanations on the global brain algorithm. We explain core concepts in simple terms that help to understand the algorithms as a whole.</p>
Laboratory of Evolutionary Design
Developing biological AI for human good at Stanford University
TILOS HOT-AI Workshop: The Architecture of Intelligence with John Doyle
Position: Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment
Recent advances in general-purpose AI underscore the urgent need to align AI systems with human goals and values. Yet, the lack of a clear, shared understanding of what constitutes "alignment" limits meaningful progress and cross-disciplinary collaboration. In this position paper, we argue that the research community should explicitly define and critically reflect on "alignment" to account for the bidirectional and dynamic relationship between humans and AI. Through a systematic review of over 400 papers spanning HCI, NLP, ML, and more, we examine how alignment is currently defined and operationalized. Building on this analysis, we introduce the Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment framework, which not only incorporates traditional efforts to align AI with human values but also introduces the critical, underexplored dimension of aligning humans with AI – supporting cognitive, behavioral, and societal adaptation to rapidly advancing AI technologies. Our findings reveal significant gaps in current literature, especially in long-term interaction design, human value modeling, and mutual understanding. We conclude with three central challenges and actionable recommendations to guide future research toward more nuanced, reciprocal, and human-AI alignment approaches.
The Global Brain Argument: Nodes, Computroniums and the Ai Megasystem (Target Paper for Special Issue)
The Global Brain Argument contends that many of us are, or will be, part of a global brain network that includes both biological and artificial intelligences (AIs), such as generative AIs ...
AI That Evolves in the Wild | Edge.org
I’m interested not in domesticated AI—the stuff that people are trying to sell. I'm interested in wild AI—AI that evolves in the wild. I’m a naturalist, so that’s the interesting thing to me. Thirty-four years ago there was a meeting just like this in which Stanislaw Ulam said to everybody in the room—they’re all mathematicians—"What makes you so sure that mathematical logic corresponds to the way we think?" It’s a higher-level symptom. It’s not how the brain works. All those guys knew fully well that the brain was not fundamentally logical.
How AI coding is reshaping theoretical neuroscience
Agentic coding makes it possible to specify a neuroscience model in hours instead of months. Neuroscientists weigh in on that tectonic change.
560 – Ecological Cognition II: Resonance
560 What the heck does the brain do in Ecological Dynamics, if it isn’t computing, processing, or representing? An introduction to the concept of Resonance.Download link
