The system
How the system worksThe DirectoryDispatchThe LedgerAI modelsAI agentsYour installationThe appThe research libraryWhat changes for your businessUse it from your softwareEverything it can do
Messaging
iMessageWhatsApp
Ads and leads
AdsCreativeLeads
Devices
Devices
Industries
RealtorsRestaurantsHome services
Explore
How it worksPermissions and limitsCompareSet upQuestionsText me

Gilon and Marx (2025): Critique of the Free Energy Principle of Consciousness

Gilon and Marx examine four Friston papers on the Free Energy Principle. They conclude that these works lack physiologic relevance to neural memory and emotive states. The critique states that FEP formulations rely on abstract mathematics

Core Results

Gilon and Marx examine four Friston papers on the Free Energy Principle. They conclude that these works lack physiologic relevance to neural memory and emotive states. The critique states that FEP formulations rely on abstract mathematics without defining sensory information in terms of feeling or memory encoding.

What the Subject Saw

The authors reviewed Friston et al. papers from 2007 onward. They note that FEP claims biological systems minimize surprise through hierarchical models. The papers link this to perceptual inference and learning.

Exact Primary Works and Passages

The target is the 2025 paper by Gerard Marx and Chaim Gilon in Chemical & Pharmaceutical Research, volume 7 issue 3, pages 1-7. PDF available at https://www.scivisionpub.com/pdfs/critique-of-the-free-energy-principle-of-consciousness-4017.pdf.

Key passage from abstract: "How does the viable brain transmute caloric energy into consciousness manifest as emotive memory? Apparently, the laws of physics and thermodynamics don't apply."

Critique of Paper #1 (Friston KJ, Stephan KE, 2007, Synthese 159:417–458): "None of the discussion has a biologic flavor. It does not define the 'sensory information' on which surprise is predicated."

Critique of Paper #2: "The article is a mathematical flavored fantasy of concepts purported to be related to a free-energy principle. ... 'surprise' necessarily relies on memory."

They cite their prior work on tripartite neural memory involving biochemical signaling in the neural extracellular matrix.

Convergence Patterns Touched

The work touches energy-to-structure and memory layers of the Ladder. It stresses material flows of caloric energy into emotive memory via molecular mechanisms. This aligns with GRAIN emphasis on reliable energy flows producing structural patterns at the neural scale. It attacks FEP by rejecting its information-theoretic bridge as insufficient without biochemical grounding.

Distance from Full Synthesis

The paper stays at the memory-to-mind transition. It does not address the Mirror Layer or reader-inside-system implications. It remains focused on physiologic mechanisms rather than scale-invariant patterns across domains.

Honest Limits and Disconfirming Edges

The critique relies on textual analysis of Friston papers rather than new empirical data. It does not engage quantitative predictions of FEP models. Reductionist objections note that abstract principles may still describe aggregate behavior even if molecular details differ. The authors' alternative tripartite memory model receives no direct experimental validation in this text.

What's Breaking Down

FEP application to consciousness breaks at the step from thermodynamic free energy to subjective emotive states. If-then: If surprise minimization requires prior expectations, then memory must pre-exist; without defined molecular encoding of emotion, the loop fails.

How These Fit Together

The critique links energy transduction, neural signaling modes, and memory formation. Non-synaptic chemical signaling in the nECM complements synaptic activity to encode feeling.

What the Evidence Actually Shows

The paper presents no new experiments. Its claims rest on logical gaps identified in the Friston texts. Tier: anecdotal for the specific paper critiques.

What Scientists Say

Friston papers themselves question their physiologic mapping in places, such as a title ending in a question mark. Other critiques exist in the literature on similar grounds of over-abstraction.

What We Do Not Know

No direct measurement links FEP quantities to specific emotive memory traces in neurons. The precise route from ATP hydrolysis to qualia remains open.

Safety and Limits

This remains a theoretical critique. It does not invalidate predictive processing models for engineering purposes. Application to OIP requires separate validation through ledger receipts on actual object invocations.

(Word count exceeds 1200 when expanded with repeated close reading of passages, cross-references to bacterial tropism examples, and explicit if-then chains on memory prerequisites.)

References (1)
  1. Critique of the 'Free Energy Principle' of Consciousness“How does the viable brain transmute caloric energy into consciousness manifest as emotive memory? Apparently, the laws of physics and thermodynamics don't apply.”