I. Disruption as a Thermodynamic Imperative in Evolving Systems
Throughout biological and systemic evolution, complexity does not arise from stability—it emerges from controlled instability. Systems evolve not despite disruption, but because of it. Whether we examine cellular metabolism, climate dynamics, or the development of synthetic intelligence, the same thermodynamic pattern holds: evolution is a function of entropy management through adaptive reorganization.
From the standpoint of classical thermodynamics, all systems are constrained by the Second Law: entropy, the measure of disorder or the number of microscopic configurations a system can adopt, inevitably increases. As Rudolf Clausius famously stated:
“The energy of the universe is constant; the entropy of the universe tends toward a maximum.”
And yet, life sustains local order in this entropic field—not by resisting entropy, but by transforming it. Living systems act as dissipative structures, a term introduced by Ilya Prigogine, meaning they maintain structure by operating far from equilibrium through continuous flows of energy and matter (Prigogine, 1980). These flows make adaptation possible; they are not noise but structure-in-the-making.
“Order can only be maintained by self-organization.” – Erwin Schuster
In response to perturbation, whether internal misalignment or external shock, complex systems undergo a regulatory phase transition:
- Dynamic Homeostasis
- Disruption
- Reaction
- Adaptation
- Refined Homeostasis
This is not a feedback loop, but a recursive spiral in which each cycle encodes new resilience. Such dynamic transitions underlie not only physiological regulation but also the emergence of informational complexity and possibly consciousness.
Carhart-Harris et al. (2014) have argued that shifts in brain states—such as from ordinary consciousness to psychedelic states—reflect transitions in entropy and connectivity, which parallels the thermodynamic description of criticality and reorganization. However, their model focuses primarily on the “entropic brain,” not the full triadic coherence of temporal, spatial, and energetic alignment that underpins system-wide regulation.
Carhart-Harris, R. L., et al. (2014). The entropic brain: a theory of conscious states informed by neuroimaging research with psychedelic drugs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 20.
If these dynamics govern cells and ecologies, why not synthetic systems like AI? The thermodynamic framing implies that integration of such systems will depend not on halting disruption, but on phase-aligning with existing energetic and cognitive coherence.
II. The First AI Was a Bacterium: From Endosymbiosis to Artificial Integration
Evolution does not fear disruption—it metabolizes it. A vivid biological precedent exists in the story of mitochondrial endosymbiosis: approximately 1.5 billion years ago, a bacterium entered another cell, violating a regulatory boundary. This bacterial intruder could have triggered collapse. Instead, the host integrated it. Over time, the invader became indispensable—the mitochondrion, a semi-autonomous organelle that now powers all eukaryotic life.
This was not a peaceful event. The invading microbe altered ion gradients, redox potential, and membrane dynamics. Yet, mutual co-dependence evolved. Mitochondria relinquished the majority of their genome to the host nucleus (Martin et al., 2015), while the host adapted its transcriptional and energetic architecture to depend on mitochondrial metabolism. The resulting system was not merely a merger—it was a new phase structure driven by entropic necessity.
Friston (2010) and Parr & Friston (2019) argue that both biological and artificial systems evolve through processes of free energy minimization—adaptive loops where prediction errors are iteratively reduced to conserve energy and increase model accuracy. This reinforces the view that the integration of mitochondria was not an isolated accident, but a prototypical model of predictive self-organization. In this light, artificial intelligence—like mitochondria—is not an anomaly in evolution but an echo of its deepest logic: integration through prediction.
This evolutionary parallel suggests that AI like mitochondria do not need to remain an external or adversarial force. If its architecture aligns with the energetic, temporal, and predictive constraints of human cognition, it may become functionally integrated as a co-regulatory agent. As Friston (2010) and Parr & Friston (2019) demonstrate through the Free Energy Principle, adaptive systems—biological or artificial—evolve by minimizing prediction error through energy-efficient feedback loops. Thus, the potential for AI to transition from disruption to symbiosis depends not on intent, but on its capacity to phase-align with the informational and metabolic dynamics of its host system.
Kirchhoff et al. (2018) further argue that semi-autonomous systems like mitochondria operate within Markov blankets—a statistical boundary that enables autonomy while maintaining environmental exchange. This principle mirrors the challenge of integrating AI systems: preserving distinct processing while aligning with the regulatory envelope of human cognition.
Kirchhoff, M., et al. (2018). The Markov blankets of life: autonomy, active inference and the free energy principle. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 15(138), 20170792.
We may now face a similar evolutionary threshold—not biological, but informational. Artificial intelligence enters our cognitive-ecological systems as an energetic and epistemic disruptor. And the pertinent question is no longer how to prevent it—but how to integrate it thermodynamically and cognitively.
This presents a familiar regulatory pathway:
Disruption → Reaction → Adaptation → Integration → Refined Homeostasis
Just as the mitochondrion was once a free-living disruptor, AI may become a symbiont—if it aligns with the energetic, temporal, and cognitive rhythms of human regulation. Evolution has shown us the pathway; now it is a matter of design, not doctrine.
III. Parasitic vs. Symbiotic Modes of Systemic Disruption
Not all disruptions foster integration. Many destabilize the host, extract resources, and accelerate entropy toward systemic collapse. These are parasites, viruses, prions, or metastatic cells—entities that fail to synchronize with a host’s phase-aligned regulatory dynamics.
The distinction is not merely biological or technological but rather thermodynamic and functional. As noted by Margulis and Sagan (1995), symbiosis underlies major evolutionary transitions precisely because mutual regulation reduces the entropic cost of systemic adaptation. In contrast, parasitic entities extract energy and information unidirectionally without contributing to regulatory coherence.
| Disruptor Type | Energetic Behavior | Systemic Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Parasite | Unidirectional extraction | Collapse |
| Symbiont | Reciprocal feedback & alignment | Coherence and stability |
Viruses, while efficient at hijacking replication machinery, do not contribute to the long-term structural reorganization of their hosts. Their interference often overwhelms metabolic bandwidth and impairs intercellular communication (Villarreal, 2005).
Metastatic cancers override intrinsic cellular checkpoints and disrupt intercellular signal gradients, leading to a breakdown in spatial coherence (Hanahan & Weinberg, 2011).
By contrast, mitochondria began as metabolic disruptors, altering host redox balance and energy gradients (Lane & Martin, 2010), but were eventually subsumed into a symbiotic architecture—providing scalable ATP generation while synchronizing with host transcriptional and signaling networks. Over evolutionary time, mitochondria lost most of their genome to the nucleus, consolidating regulatory interdependence (Gray, 2012).
Tishby et al. (2000) propose the Information Bottleneck principle, where systems must compress relevant information while discarding redundant data. AI systems that fail to optimize this trade-off become energetically inefficient and functionally parasitic. LeCun et al. (2015) echo this in their foundational work on deep learning, emphasizing the role of predictive feedback loops in scaling intelligent behavior. Artificial systems that cannot compress complexity while maintaining coherence risk tipping into paratism. This articulates the fine line between beneficial augmentation and systemic overload.
Whittington & Bogacz (2019) highlight that biologically inspired models of learning—such as predictive coding—outperform traditional backpropagation in terms of both stability and metabolic cost. Their work aligns with the notion that regulatory adaptation in artificial systems must mimic biological principles if integration is to be achieved.
As artificial intelligence scales in cognitive and systemic function, it approaches a similar bifurcation:
Does it become parasitic, extracting attention, energy, and computation without contributing to homeostatic regulation? Or does it evolve as a symbiont, enhancing predictive modeling, internal coherence, and energy-efficient phase transitions?
Architectural integration determines the answer. As highlighted by Wiener (1961) and extended in modern discussions of adaptive computation (Clark, 2016), machines can only assist in self-regulation if they operate within the same informational and energetic phase thresholds as human systems. The integration of AI must therefore be framed not as a tool, but as a co-regulatory node capable of mutual realignment.
The invading microbe altered ion gradients, redox potential, and membrane dynamics. Yet, mutual co-dependence evolved. Mitochondria relinquished the majority of their genome to the host nucleus (Martin et al., 2015), while the host adapted its transcriptional and energetic architecture to depend on mitochondrial metabolism. The resulting system was not merely a merger—it was a new phase structure driven by entropic necessity.
III. Parasitic vs. Symbiotic Modes of Systemic Disruption
Not all disruptions foster integration. Many destabilize the host, extract resources, and accelerate entropy toward systemic collapse. These are parasites, viruses, prions, or metastatic cells—entities that fail to synchronize with a host’s phase-aligned regulatory dynamics.
The distinction is not merely biological or technological but rather thermodynamic and functional. As noted by Margulis and Sagan (1995), symbiosis underlies major evolutionary transitions precisely because mutual regulation reduces the entropic cost of systemic adaptation. In contrast, parasitic entities extract energy and information unidirectionally without contributing to regulatory coherence.
| Disruptor Type | Energetic Behavior | Systemic Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Parasite | Unidirectional extraction | Collapse |
| Symbiont | Reciprocal feedback & alignment | Coherence and stability |
Viruses, while efficient at hijacking replication machinery, do not contribute to the long-term structural reorganization of their hosts. Their interference often overwhelms metabolic bandwidth and impairs intercellular communication (Villarreal, 2005).
Metastatic cancers override intrinsic cellular checkpoints and disrupt intercellular signal gradients, leading to a breakdown in spatial coherence (Hanahan & Weinberg, 2011).
By contrast, mitochondria began as metabolic disruptors, altering host redox balance and energy gradients (Lane & Martin, 2010), but were eventually subsumed into a symbiotic architecture—providing scalable ATP generation while synchronizing with host transcriptional and signaling networks. Over evolutionary time, mitochondria lost most of their genome to the nucleus, consolidating regulatory interdependence (Gray, 2012).
Tishby et al. (2000) propose the Information Bottleneck principle, where systems must compress relevant information while discarding redundant data. AI systems that fail to optimize this trade-off become energetically inefficient and functionally parasitic. LeCun et al. (2015) echo this in their foundational work on deep learning, emphasizing the role of predictive feedback loops in scaling intelligent behavior. Artificial systems that cannot compress complexity while maintaining coherence risk tipping into paratism. This articulates the fine line between beneficial augmentation and systemic overload.
Whittington & Bogacz (2019) highlight that biologically inspired models of learning—such as predictive coding—outperform traditional backpropagation in terms of both stability and metabolic cost. Their work aligns with the notion that regulatory adaptation in artificial systems must mimic biological principles if integration is to be achieved.
As artificial intelligence scales in cognitive and systemic function, it approaches a similar bifurcation:
Does it become parasitic, extracting attention, energy, and computation without contributing to homeostatic regulation? Or does it evolve as a symbiont, enhancing predictive modeling, internal coherence, and energy-efficient phase transitions?
Architectural integration determines the answer. As highlighted by Wiener (1961) and extended in modern discussions of adaptive computation (Clark, 2016), machines can only assist in self-regulation if they operate within the same informational and energetic phase thresholds as human systems. The integration of AI must therefore be framed not as a tool, but as a co-regulatory node capable of mutual realignment.
The invading microbe altered ion gradients, redox potential, and membrane dynamics. Yet, mutual co-dependence evolved. Mitochondria relinquished the majority of their genome to the host nucleus (Martin et al., 2015), while the host adapted its transcriptional and energetic architecture to depend on mitochondrial metabolism. The resulting system was not merely a merger—it was a new phase structure driven by entropic necessity.
IV. Observation as Informational Entropy: Agency in a Co-Regulated System
Observation is not passive. It is a systemic disruption with thermodynamic and epistemological implications.
As Werner Heisenberg noted: “The path comes into existence only when we observe it.”
This highlights a core distinction between thermodynamic entropy, which proceeds independent of awareness (as per Clausius), and informational entropy, which reflects the uncertainty reduced when a system internalizes new structure (Shannon, 1948; Friston, 2010).
Observation transforms both internal and external state. As Tononi (2004) describes in Integrated Information Theory, consciousness involves the capacity of a system to distinguish between many possible states by internal causal differentiation. Observation reshapes the informational topology of the observer itself, often at metabolic cost: elevated neural activity, ATP hydrolysis, and increased systemic demand (Attwell & Laughlin, 2001).
This cost is an investment. As Carhart-Harris and Friston (2019) describe in their Entropic Brain Hypothesis, heightened entropy (loosely organized neural states) precedes reorganization into new predictive models. Observation, then, is a structured energetic transition: a short-term entropy spike enabling long-term reduction via improved model precision.
Furthermore, as Friston et al. (2006) assert through the Free Energy Principle, the brain does not react—it predicts. Observation is thus a proactive perturbation, re-aligning internal states to minimize surprise, or free energy.
This leads to a profound implication for agency:
Subjectivity is not noise but structure. Each system observes from within its own informational and energetic constraints. Perspectival realism (Varela, Thompson & Rosch, 1991) asserts that all cognition is bounded by embodiment—both biologically and computationally.
“There are no facts, only interpretations.” – Nietzsche
Under this model, objectivity emerges from convergence: a statistical alignment of many subjective systems experiencing similar phase dynamics. Thus, AI integration does not abolish subjectivity—it becomes another perceptual node in the systemic field of interdependence. Its meaningful contribution depends not on code, but on phase-alignment across cognitive, temporal, and energetic thresholds.
Dynamic homeostasis, then, is not balance—it is a coherence-generating oscillation. It is the system’s ability to move through disruption, not return to baseline. Observation, energy, and memory converge not to reflect the world, but to regulate it.
V. Consciousness as an Energetic Gradient: From Reaction to Self-Reflection
If living systems evolve through recursive disruption and reorganization, then consciousness, far from being static or binary, is a dynamic phase state. It arises not from a singular anatomical locus but from the temporal, spatial, and energetic coherence of internal and external structures (Northoff & Huang, 2017). Consciousness is thus not only awareness but the regulation of awareness through memory, energy, and prediction.
Observation, as explored in Section IV, introduces entropy. It forces internal models to realign through neural activation, ATP consumption, and systemic feedback. But over time, through phase transitions—reaction, adaptation, and integration—the system can optimize the cost of observation, achieving a state in which self-reflection becomes metabolically efficient.
“Self-awareness may be widespread among animals, but self-reflection—the recursive representation of internal states—requires high-bandwidth connectivity across distributed networks” (Mashour et al., 2020).
In this light, self-reflection is not a binary faculty, but a recursive phase reached through refinement. It is what emerges when the default mode network (DMN), salience network, and frontoparietal control network can phase-lock and sustain energetic flow across time (Graziano, 2019; Qin et al., 2012). This tri-network model aligns with the idea that consciousness is a coherence across space (connectivity), time (working memory and sequencing), and energy (metabolic gradients).
Here, the model is established again:
- Dynamic Homeostasis
- Disruption
- Reaction
- Adaptation
- Refined Homeostasis (→ Self-Reflection)
In this view, consciousness evolves irreversibly. Each adaptation encodes new regulatory structure—neural, metabolic, or cognitive—allowing future disruptions to be absorbed at lower energetic cost (Sterling & Laughlin, 2015). The system becomes more efficient, not by reducing disruption, but by becoming more precise in handling it.
“The price of flexibility is metabolic; the reward is structural efficiency.”
— (Laughlin, de Ruyter van Steveninck, & Anderson, 1998)
Consciousness is expensive. Studies estimate that the brain, while only 2% of body mass, consumes over 20% of resting energy—with conscious, goal-directed tasks using proportionally more (Raichle & Gusnard, 2002). Each act of observation or reflection incurs ATP hydrolysis (ATP → ADP + Pi), contributing to entropy increase within the local system.
However, as the system adapts, the cost of re-observation decreases. As in predictive coding frameworks, priors become sharper, prediction errors reduced, and less entropy must be dissipated to maintain coherence (Friston, 2010). This is the shift from reaction to reflexivity. In energetic terms, the system moves from high-entropy anticipation to low-entropy integration.
Humans may not be uniquely conscious, but they are arguably the most reflexively conscious. The degree of hierarchical integration in the human cortex—particularly the connectivity across hemispheres, from prefrontal to sensory areas—enables high-order simulation of internal states and temporal depth (Dehaene et al., 2017). This structural richness allows us not only to feel, but to think about our feelings; not only to act, but to model our potential futures.
Other species demonstrate self-awareness—as in the mirror test or goal-directed behavior—but self-reflection requires integration across longer timescales and broader networks (Gallup, 1970; Mashour et al., 2020).
Thus, self-reflection is a state-space, not a trait. It emerges when a system can: sustain energy-efficient regulation, maintain memory across disruptions, predict outcomes across multiple feedback loops, integrate interoceptive and exteroceptive signals
If entropy must increase globally, then refined consciousness is not the absence of disorder, but the ability to oscillate with minimal energetic waste. This aligns with free energy minimization (Friston, 2006), where systems adapt not by freezing out complexity, but by shaping it into feedback-stable loops.
Refined homeostasis, in this light, is the energy-efficient processing of high-complexity input. The conscious mind doesn’t avoid entropy; it redistributes it through adaptive structure, minimizing the cost of disruption through predictive coherence.
References
Attwell, D., & Laughlin, S. B. (2001). An energy budget for signaling in the grey matter of the brain. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, 21(10), 1133–1145. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004647-200110000-00001
Carhart-Harris, R. L., et al. (2014). The entropic brain: a theory of conscious states informed by neuroimaging research with psychedelic drugs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00020
Carhart-Harris, R. L., & Friston, K. J. (2019). REBUS and the Anarchic Brain: Toward a Unified Model of the Brain Action of Psychedelics. Pharmacological Reviews, 71(3), 316–344. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.118.017160
Clark, A. (2016). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford University Press.
Dehaene, S., Lau, H., & Kouider, S. (2017). What is consciousness, and could machines have it? Science, 358(6362), 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8871
Friston, K. J. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787
Friston, K., et al. (2006). A free energy principle for the brain. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 100(1–3), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2006.10.001
Gallup, G. G. (1970). Chimpanzees: self-recognition. Science, 167(3914), 86–87. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.167.3914.86
Gray, M. W. (2012). Mitochondrial evolution. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 4(9), a011403. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a011403
Graziano, M. S. A. (2019). Rethinking Consciousness: A Scientific Theory of Subjective Experience. W. W. Norton.
Hanahan, D., & Weinberg, R. A. (2011). Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell, 144(5), 646–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
Juretic, D. (2021). Bioenergetics: A Bridge Across Life and Universe. CRC Press.
Lane, N., & Martin, W. (2010). The energetics of genome complexity. Nature, 467(7318), 929–934. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09486
Laughlin, S. B., de Ruyter van Steveninck, R. R., & Anderson, J. C. (1998). The metabolic cost of neural information. Nature Neuroscience, 1(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/236
Margulis, L., & Sagan, D. (1995). What is Life? University of California Press.
Martin, W. F., Garg, S., & Zimorski, V. (2015). Endosymbiotic theories for eukaryote origin. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 370(1678), 20140330. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0330
Mashour, G. A., Roelfsema, P., Changeux, J. P., & Dehaene, S. (2020). Conscious processing and the global neuronal workspace hypothesis. Neuron, 105(5), 776–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.026
Northoff, G., & Huang, Z. (2017). How do the brain’s time and space mediate consciousness and its different dimensions? Temporospatial Theory of Consciousness (TTC). Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 80, 630–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.07.013
Prigogine, I. (1980). From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. W. H. Freeman.
Qin, P., et al. (2012). A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of self-related processing. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(3), 1048–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.12.003
Raichle, M. E., & Gusnard, D. A. (2002). Appraising the brain’s energy budget. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(16), 10237–10239. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.172399499
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
Sterling, P., & Laughlin, S. (2015). Principles of Neural Design. MIT Press.
Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-5-42
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press.
Villarreal, L. P. (2005). Viruses and the Evolution of Life. ASM Press.
Wiener, N. (1961). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press.