A Matter of Time: Towards a General Theory of Agency
Extracted source text · arXiv 2606.23122
\documentclass[letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{natbib,alifeconf} %% The order is important
\usepackage{url,hyperref,cleveref}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{glossaries}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{epigraph}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{tikz-cd}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
% first colour for latex or pdflatex
%\ifx\pdfoutput\@undefined\usepackage[usenames,dvips]{color}
%\else\usepackage[usenames,dvipsnames]{color}
% and fix pdf colour problems
%\IfFileExists{pdfcolmk.sty}{\usepackage{pdfcolmk}}{}
%\fi
% *****************
% Requirements:
% *****************
%
% - All pages sized consistently at 8.5 x 11 inches (US letter size).
% - PDF length <= 8 pages for full papers, <=2 pages for extended
% abstracts (not including citations).
% - Abstract length <= 250 words.
% - No visible crop marks.
% - Images at no greater than 300 dpi, scaled at 100%.
% - Embedded open type fonts only.
% - All layers flattened.
% - No attachments.
% - All desired links active in the files.
% Note that the PDF file must not exceed 5 MB if it is to be indexed
% by Google Scholar. Additional information about Google Scholar
% can be found here:
% http://www.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html.
% If your system does not generate letter format documents by default,
% you can use the following workflow:
% latex example
% bibtex example
% latex example ; latex example
% dvips -o example.ps -t letterSize example.dvi
% ps2pdf example.ps example.pdf
% For pdflatex users:
% The alifeconf style file loads the "graphicx" package, and
% this may lead some users of pdflatex to experience problems.
% These can be fixed by editing the alifeconf.sty file to specify:
% \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}
% instead of
% \usepackage{graphicx}.
% The PDF output generated by pdflatex should match the required
% specifications and obviously the dvips and ps2pdf steps become
% unnecessary.
% Note: Some laser printers have a serious problem printing TeX
% output. The use of ps type I fonts should avoid this problem.
\title{ALIFE2024 template}
\title{A Matter of Time: Towards a General Theory of Agency}
% Each submission will undergo a double-blind review process. To this end, submissions should NOT contain any element that could reveal the identity of the authors (author names, affiliations, funding details and acknowledgments), and should use the third person to refer to previous work by the authors.
\author{
Amahury J. López-Díaz
\and
Carlos Gershenson \\
\mbox{}\\
School of Systems Science and Industrial Engineering, Binghamton University, 4400 Vestal Pkwy E, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA\\
alpez@binghamton.edu
} % email of corresponding author
% For several authors from the same institution use the same number to
% refer to one address.
%
% If the names do not fit well on one line use
% Author 1, Author 2 ... \\ {\Large\bf Author n} ...\\ ...
%
% If the title and author information do not fit in the area
% allocated, place \setlength\titlebox{<new height>} after the
% \documentclass line where <new height> is 2.25in
\begin{document}
\maketitle
% Core Claim: agency begins when an organizationally autonomous system acquires an endogenous, revisable anticipatory organization that differentially modulates its coupling with the environment in light of possible futures. Thus, Agency is not identical to stability, control, or even autonomy; it emerges when a precarious self-producing organization becomes temporally structured in such a way that its internally generated anticipatory dynamics selectively guide adaptive action, and it becomes open-ended when that anticipatory organization can reconstruct its own future space of possibilities.
\begin{abstract}
% Abstract length should not exceed 250 words
Agency is often invoked in philosophy, biology, and cognitive science research without a clear account of how it originates from material organization. Building on temporally parametrized (F, A)-systems, this paper develops a graded organizational theory of agency grounded in relational biology, physical biosemiotics, and process ontology. We argue that self-referential closure cannot be adequately conceived outside time: once the constitutive processes of a semantically closed organization are associated with distinct characteristic timescales, the organization unfolds into an out-of-sync dependency structure that can be formally redescribed as a history-dependent, revisable Asynchronous Dynamic Bayesian Network. This move allows for a principled distinction between autonomy, goal-directedness, agency, and open-endedness. Autonomy arises from precarious closure to efficient causation under material openness; goal-directedness from the maintenance of viability-supporting organization; agency appears when such organization acquires an endogenous anticipatory structure that selectively modulates organism-environment coupling in light of possible futures; open-endedness begins when this anticipatory organization can reconstruct its own future space of possibilities. Our framework reconciles Rosennean anticipation with organizational closure, restricts Markov blankets and active inference to derived formal redescriptions rather than first principles, and reinterprets computational enactivism in non-Fristonian terms. By deriving weaker temporalized organizations, our contribution outlines a hierarchy from proto-agential chemical systems to fully semantically closed agents, with implications for multicellular organisms, synthetic lifeforms, and neuroscience.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
% why agency needs a new foundation?
Despite the extraordinary successes of molecular biology, synthetic biology, and origin-of-life research, one central problem remains unresolved: we can characterize many of the molecular mechanisms by which living systems build and maintain themselves, and we can synthesize an ever larger subset of life’s chemical components, yet we still cannot construct from scratch a fully autonomous cell~\citep{roosth2019synthetic}. This persistent gap suggests that the central issue is not merely one of chemical inventory, but of organization, temporality, and control. What is missing is not one more molecular part, but a principled account of how living systems come to self-produce themselves, distinguish relevant from irrelevant aspects, and act so as to preserve and transform their own conditions of existence~\citep{jaeger2024naturalizing}. Such an account will, of course, provide insights into the type of organization required for matter to acquire a capacity for genuine agency~\citep{difrisco2025biological}.
“Agency,” the crux of the present manuscript, is routinely invoked across biology, cognitive science, artificial life, artificial intelligence, and philosophy as if its meaning were self-evident. In practice, however, the term oscillates among several partially overlapping notions, from self-maintenance~\citep{rosslenbroich2024agency}, adaptive control~\citep{kelso2016self}, and goal-directedness~\citep{ball2023organisms}, up to anticipation~\citep{walsh2015organisms}, autonomy~\citep{virenque2024agency}, and context-sensitive action~\citep{egbert2023behaviour}. As a consequence, we have a proliferation of diverse partial accounts. Some explain how systems remain organized, others how they pursue attractors or viability conditions, others how they infer or predict, but no consensus yet exists regarding the threshold at which a merely self-organizing or goal-directed system becomes an agent. To characterize agency, it is necessary to clarify how it relates to other relevant terminology in the literature.
To do so, we must first recognize that the modern discussion of agency inherits an older question: \emph{what genuinely distinguishes the living from the non-living?} Twentieth-century biology increasingly answered that question in reductionist terms, especially after the rise of molecular genetics~\citep{watson1953molecular}, which encouraged the view that conventional physical and chemical laws were sufficient to explain life~\citep{kendrew1967phage}. More recently, complex systems approaches shifted the focus from molecular parts to emergent patterns, nonlinear interactions, and self-organization~\citep{capra2014systems}. These perspectives clarified many features of living organization, but they did not by themselves explain why life displays a form of historically open-ended, adaptive, and self-modifying activity that exceeds the novelty generated by fixed rule-based approaches~\citep{pattee1995artificial}.
At the same time, we must notice that renewed attention to niche construction~\citep{trappes2022individualized}, organism-environment reciprocity~\citep{read2024animals}, multicellularity~\citep{newman2025agency}, and minimal cognition~\citep{lyon2020minimal} have made agency newly central rather than philosophically optional. This renewed interest has been productive, but it has also exposed a conceptual instability: biological agency is often treated either as an intuitive label for behaviors we do not yet fully understand and that cannot be experimentally falsifiable~\citep{difrisco2025biological}, or as a primitive property inherent to life presupposed wherever living organisms exhibit flexibility, purposiveness, or problem-solving capacities~\citep{rosslenbroich2024agency}. The result of such an ambiguity is a field rich in suggestive descriptions but comparatively poor in principled thresholds.
Currently, three general approaches dominating the background of the debate can be identified in the literature, and none of them is satisfactory on its own. The first treats agency as a primitive gift of life, an irreducible feature that appears once matter crosses some poorly specified biological threshold (e.g.,~\citet{maturana1980}, and more recently~\citet{moreno2015biological}). This move preserves the distinctiveness of living systems, but it risks collapsing into descriptive vitalism if it does not explain how agency could emerge gradually from simpler organized matter~\citep{walsh2018towards}. The second identifies agency with robust goal-directedness or adaptive self-stabilization (e.g.,~\citet{ashby1952design}, and more recently~\citet{barandiaran2009defining}). On this view, a system counts as agentive insofar as it resists perturbations, restores viability, or converges on preferred states.
This second approach captures important aspects of life, but it threatens to flatten the distinction between genuinely agentive organizations and merely self-stabilizing architectures. A thermostat, a hurricane, a flame, and a cell may all exhibit forms of persistence or attractor-like behavior, yet that does not mean they all instantiate agency in the same sense~\citep{mossio2017makes}. The third response universalizes agency by treating it as a consequence of free-energy minimization or expected-state maintenance (e.g.,~\citet{friston2009free}, and more recently~\citet{kirchhoff2018markov}). Here the advantage is formal unification, but the cost is explanatory overreach. If the same formal vocabulary equally describes pendulums, power grids, candles, and organisms, then the formalism alone cannot tell us what is specifically biological, letting alone what is specifically agentive~\citep{nave2025drive}. The problem is not that these frameworks are useless, but that, taken as first principles, they risk being too broad to ground a general theory of agency.
When comparing the philosophical foundations of each of these approaches, the old disputes between computationalism and enactivism inevitably resurface. Mostly guided by the early insights from~\citet{turing1936computable} and~\citet{church1936unsolvable, church1936note}, computationalist approaches are right to insist that living and cognitive systems involve structured organization, informational constraint, and internally differentiated operations that cannot be reduced to undifferentiated flux~\citep{ashby1947principles, Turing1950computing}. They preserve, in other words, the intuition that agency must involve some form of internal selectivity, mediation, or organization of possibilities~\citep{fodor1975language, marr2010vision}. But old-fashioned classical computationalism pays for this strength by treating syntax as if it were sufficient, thereby sidelining embodiment, material turnover, measurement, control, and the historically contingent emergence of semantic relevance~\citep{cariani1989design}.
Founded by~\citet{varela1991embodied}, and later radicalized by~\citet{thompson2001radical},
enactivist approaches, in contrast to computationalism, are right to insist that cognition and agency are inseparable from embodied self-maintenance, organism-environment coupling, and precarious autonomy~\citep{villalobos2013enactive, newen20184E, gallagher2023embodied}. They preserve what computationalism often misses: that meaning is not merely manipulated but enacted from within a self-producing organization~\citep{thompson2010mind, di2022laying}. Yet enactivist frameworks have often remained comparatively weaker on the question of formal articulation~\citep{ward2017introduction}. They tell us why agency cannot be reduced to disembodied symbol manipulation, but they do not always specify what kind of internal organization is needed for anticipatory, selectively adaptive action to arise~\citep{villalobos2017post}.
We must then clarify that the point of this paper is not to choose one side against the other, but to show that both traditions isolate genuine features of agency while leaving a crucial gap between them. What is needed is a framework that preserves the organizational and inferential insight of computation without detaching it from material self-production, and that preserves the embodied and normative insight of enactivism without leaving agency at the level of suggestive metaphors. Following ~\citet{pattee2001physics}, we start by proposing that life is distinguished from non-life by semantic closure, a self-referential organization in which symbols do not merely stand for functions but participate in the construction of the very mechanisms that interpret them~\citep{pattee2012evolving}. By extending~\citet{hofmeyr2021biochemically}'s $(F, A)$-systems through environmental affordances, we argue that semantically closed organizations can be both autopoietic and adaptive, i.e., closed to efficient causation while remaining open to formal causation~\citep{rosen1991life}.
Proceeding downward through weaker versions of an $(F, A)$-organization, it is possible to reconstruct a hierarchy ranging from simple reaction networks to self-constructing chemical systems with proactive capabilities, identifying self-reference as a necessary condition for robust self-replication and open-ended evolution~\citep{lopez2025closing}. That previous result, however, immediately generates a deeper question. If relational models are intrinsically time-invariant, how can they capture the temporally extended character of living organization without collapsing back into state-space approaches with fixed transition functions? This is the point at which the present paper begins. Its concern is not the origin of semantic closure as such, but the consequences of a temporally unfolding semantically closed organization. The claim defended here is that once closure is temporally articulated, it yields not merely persistence, but a primitive anticipatory organization capable of guiding adaptive action.
It is important to note that the introduction of a temporal dimension is not a cosmetic extension. It is motivated by the nature of self-reference itself. As~\citet{varela1975calculus} proved, the poles of self-reference cannot be grasped simultaneously but only through an alternation in which operator and operand exchange roles; closure is not fully intelligible outside temporal unfolding~\citep{abramsky2025open}. Likewise, as~\citet{louie2013more} showed, anticipation is already implicit in the relational topology of closed biological systems, and thus temporal parametrization should not be understood as importing anticipation from outside, but as revealing how a closed organization becomes operationally anticipatory when its constitutive processes unfold across distinct characteristic timescales~\citep{lopez2025closing}.
Another central aim of the present work is to distinguish four fundamental notions that are often conflated in the literature. First, autonomy concerns the self-production and maintenance of an organization under materially open and precarious conditions~\citep{mossio2017makes}. Second, goal-directedness concerns the maintenance or attainment of viability-supporting organization, whether understood in terms of emergent autopoietic persistence~\citep{veloz2021goals} or attractor-like compensation of perturbations~\citep{heylighen2023meaning}. Third, agency begins only when such goal-directed organization acquires an endogenous anticipatory structure that selectively modulates organism-environment coupling in light of possible futures~\citep{newman2025agency}. Fourth, open-endedness appears when that anticipatory organization can reconstruct its own future space of possibilities rather than merely navigate within a fixed one~\citep{erwin2017topology}. These distinctions matter because they allow us to avoid two symmetric mistakes. On the one hand, not every autonomous or goal-directed system is yet an agent. On the other hand, agency need not appear all at once, as an all-or-nothing property of fully formed cells or organisms; it may have a graded prehistory. The present framework therefore seeks neither to trivialize agency nor to mystify it, but to locate it within a staged organizational continuum.
% Our paper is thus organized around four questions. First, what does temporal unfolding add to a semantically closed organization that is not already captured by closure alone? Second, what minimal organizational conditions are required for an observer to ascribe agency rather than mere goal-directedness or self-stabilization? Third, how can a formal redescription in terms of ADBNs, active inference, and possibly Markov blankets be kept biologically grounded rather than elevated into a first principle? Fourth, how does this framework help us understand a graded transition from proto-agential chemical systems to fully agentive living organizations, and possibly beyond the single cell? These questions are deliberately narrower than the question ``what is agency?'' taken in the abstract. The central claim of our framework is that agency begins when an organizationally autonomous system acquires an endogenous, revisable anticipatory organization that differentially modulates its coupling with the environment in light of possible futures. Agency is therefore not identical to stability, control, or even autonomy. It emerges when a precarious self-producing organization becomes temporally structured in such a way that its internally generated anticipatory dynamics selectively guide adaptive action. It becomes open-ended when that anticipatory organization can reconstruct its own future space of possibilities.
Our strategy is to construct a theory that is biologically anchored, formally explicit, and capable of yielding thresholds. Rather than stipulating agency from the outset, we ask what weaker temporalized organizations must exist before agency becomes possible, and what additional features mark the transition from mere coordinated compensation to genuinely anticipatory adaptive action. First, we clarify the causal vocabulary of the paper by arguing why closure to efficient causation, organizational closure, and semantic closure can be treated as convergent descriptions of the same self-producing organization. Second, we explain why such self-referential closure cannot be understood outside temporal unfolding. Third, we formalize temporally parametrized relational organization and its redescription as a history-dependent Asynchronous Dynamic Bayesian Network whose joint distribution is not fixed once and for all, but depends on context, substrate, and prior interactions. Fourth, we derive weaker temporalized organizations in order to reconstruct a graded hierarchy from proto-agency to robust agency. \emph{A posteriori}, we use this hierarchy to formally distinguish autonomy, goal-directedness, agency, and open-endedness. Finally, we show how this framework paves the way for broader applications in multicellularity, synthetic biology, and neuronal organization, while also enabling a constrained and biologically grounded use of active inference, thereby clarifying the sense in which our account is “computationally enactivist.”
\section{Life's Intercausality}
Before explaining why agency requires temporal unfolding, we must clarify what kind of organization is being unfolded. Throughout this paper, we are going to use the expressions \emph{closure to efficient causation}, \emph{organizational closure}, and \emph{semantic closure} as closely related descriptions of the same underlying biological property: organisms are not merely systems that undergo transformations, but systems that produce, maintain, and transform the constraints by which their own transformations remain possible~\citep{lopez2025closing}. This section makes that equivalence explicit. We first introduce Aristotle's four causes as causal roles rather than metaphysical substances. We then show how these roles are reinterpreted in relational biology and physical biosemiotics. Finally, we explain why organizational closure is a robust property from which a general theory of agency can legitimately begin.
Historically, modern scientific explanations often privilege efficient causation: one event, mechanism, or process brings about another. This strategy is powerful, but it becomes insufficient when the explanandum is a living organization~\citep{juarrero1999dynamics}. In organisms, the relevant question is not only what causes a process to occur, but how the causes responsible for that process are themselves produced, maintained, and rendered functional within the organization~\citep{deacon2011incomplete}. A purely efficient-causal description can tell us how a protein catalyzes a reaction, how a membrane channel transports ions, or how a motor protein performs work, but it does not by itself explain how these efficient causes belong to an organization that makes their continued operation possible. This is the reason~\citet{rosen1991life} reintroduced Aristotle's four causes into theoretical biology.
Rosen's point was not to abandon physical explanation, but to prevent biological explanation from being reduced to a single causal register, as in physics. A living system requires material causes, because it is made from matter and sustained by flows of energy~\citep{morowitz1979energy}; efficient causes, because transformations are carried out by concrete processes and constraints~\citep{montevil2015biological}; formal causes, because these transformations are shaped by organization, specificity, and instruction-like patterns~\citep{polanyi1968life, pattee2017physical}; and final causes, because the parts of an organism are intelligible in terms of their contribution to the maintenance of the whole~\citep{weber2002life}. In this sense, the four causes should be understood as complementary causal modes needed to describe organized self-production, not as four independent substances or forces.
While it is true that Aristotelian causes allow us to describe the intercausality of living organisms, their generality prevents us from concretizing their biological role, often ending up being less clear-cut in the target system than in a particular model of it~\citep{austin2021form}. For the purposes of this paper, the four causes will be reintroduced operationally as follows. The \emph{material cause} is the substrate or transformable matter, including metabolites, ions, macromolecules, membranes, energy carriers, and environmental resources. The \emph{efficient cause} encompasses any local process or constraint that brings about a transformation, such as enzymes, molecular motors, transporters, receptors, and other structures that channel physical dynamics. The \emph{formal cause} is the pattern, rule, template, code, or constraint that specifies which transformations are possible or admissible. The \emph{final cause} is not an externally imposed purpose, but the contribution of a component or process to the continued existence of the organization that makes it possible. The latter is crucial for distinguishing organisms from machines.
As argued by~\citet{nicholson2013organisms}, in an artifact, final causation is typically external: the function of a hammer, thermostat, or engine is assigned by a user or designer. In an organism, by contrast, final causation is internally grounded; the products of component processes contribute to the maintenance of the system in which those same processes can continue to operate. Thus, a biological component is not merely caused by other components; it also contributes to the conditions under which those components remain causally efficacious~\citep[p. 244]{rosen1991life}. This circular relation is what makes teleological language legitimate in biology without invoking an external designer~\citep{mossio2017makes}. In human-made machines, all relevant constraints are merely imposed from the outside. Therefore, if organic bodies are “machines” of some kind, it is evident that they constitute a very peculiar class of devices, one that human beings are not yet capable of building~\citep{marques2014rise}.
The central move of relational biology is thus to ask what happens when efficient causes are not externally supplied. In an organism, the relevant efficient causes are generated and maintained by the organization itself~\citep{rosen1986causal}. This is the core meaning of \emph{closure to efficient causation}: every component that functions as an efficient cause within the system is materially produced and maintained by other processes within that same system. In Rosen's $(M, R)$-systems, this idea appears as a closure relation among metabolic, replacement, and replication components~\citep{rosen1958representation, rosen1958relational}. In Hofmeyr's $(F, A)$-systems, the same idea becomes more biologically realistic because fabrication and assembly processes allow the system to be closed to efficient causation while remaining open to formal causation~\citep{hofmeyr2018causation, hofmeyr2021biochemically}. Thus, agency cannot be grounded in mere persistence or energetic throughput, but in an organization capable of producing the constraints through which it continues to act~\citep{pattee1971physical}.
The expression \emph{organizational closure} names the same idea at a more general level. It refers to a regime in which the constraints that channel the system's dynamics are themselves produced and maintained by the dynamics they constrain~\citep{Varela1979Principles}. It is worth noting that organizational closure is more fundamental than cyclicity, feedback, or self-organization~\citep{bourgine1992towards}. This distinction is relevant to a general theory of agency. If agency were grounded merely in recurrence or attractor-like stability, then too many non-living systems would count as agents. The system must not only persist; it must participate in the production of the constraints by which its persistence remains possible~\citep{nave2025drive}. This is why closure provides a more adequate basis for distinguishing autonomy from mere stability~\citep{varela1978being}. Organizational closure also explains why living systems are precarious. The constraints that define them do not exist once and for all, but must be continually regenerated under conditions of material turnover, perturbation, and environmental exchange~\citep{beer2023theoretical}.
Physical biosemiotics redescribes this same organizational fact in terms of substrate vehicles (“symbols”), non-holonomic constraints, measurement, and control, allowing us to better describe the interaction and origin of Aristotelian causal roles in life~\citep{pattee2007laws, pattee2012causation}. Importantly, a symbol does not become biologically meaningful merely by existing as a physical pattern. It becomes meaningful only when embedded in an organization that can interpret it and use it to control dynamics~\citep{pattee2012does, pattee1969physical}. In the cell, genetic sequences function as relatively rate-independent symbolic structures, while the molecular machinery that reads, interprets, and acts upon those sequences operates through rate-dependent physical dynamics. The epistemic cut between symbol and dynamics is therefore bridged only within a self-constructing organization~\citep{pattee2001physics, pattee2012cell}.
In this sense, both semantic closure and closure to efficient causation converge. A system is semantically closed when its symbols participate in the construction of the very mechanisms that interpret those symbols~\citep{pattee2012evolving}. The genome helps build the machinery that reads the genome, the interpretive machinery gives functional significance to the genome, and both are embedded in the continued self-production of the cell~\citep{pattee2012cell}. Thus, semantic closure is the biosemiotic description of organizational closure when the organization contains symbol-mediated measurement and control. This equivalence should be understood carefully. Closure to efficient causation, organizational closure, and semantic closure come from different theoretical traditions and emphasize different aspects of living organization. In the class of systems considered here, however, these descriptions converge on the same core property: the system produces and maintains the conditions under which its own components can function as meaningful constraints~\citep{lopez2025closing}.
There is also a methodological reason to begin from organizational closure. As stated by~\citet{wimsatt2007re}, a property is tangible when it can be accessed, derived, or detected in multiple independent ways. Organizational closure satisfies this criterion: homeostats~\citep{ashby1949electronic}, autopoietic structures~\citep{VarelaEtAl1974, maturana1980}, Kantian wholes~\citep{kauffman2000investigations, kauffman2019world}, $(M, R)$-systems~\citep{rosen1958relational, rosen1958representation}, chemotons~\citep{ganti2003chemoton}, hypercycles~\citep{eigen2012hypercycle}, kinematic automata~\citep{neumann1966theory}, closure-of-constraints approaches~\citep{mossio2010organisational, montevil2015biological} and semantic-closure accounts~\citep{barbieri1981ribotype, pattee2012clues} differ in formalism, historical origin, and biological emphasis, yet they repeatedly converge on the idea that living systems are self-producing organizations whose constraints are not merely externally imposed~\citep{letelier2011homme, cornish2020contrasting}.
This convergence does not mean that all these models are equivalent in detail. They are not, but the recurrence of organizational closure across these independent traditions suggests that it is not a parochial artifact of one formalism. It is a \emph{robust} feature for biological explanation~\citep{jaeger2026reengineering}. For this reason, the general theory of agency here proposed begins from the organizational property that multiple theories of life have independently found necessary. This point also helps us to avoid methodological vitalism. Agency should not be treated as a primitive gift that appears mysteriously once chemistry becomes biological~\citep{walsh2018towards}. If organizational closure is robustly characterizable, then we can ask how different degrees and kinds of closure support different degrees and kinds of agency. Thus, rather than assuming agency \emph{ab initio}, we now ask how a closed organization must be temporally structured for anticipatory adaptive action to become possible.
\section{Time and Self-Reference}
Having clarified the causal meaning of organizational closure, we can now ask why time enters the picture at all. One of the biggest motivations for~\citet{rosen1991life} to work with time-invariant category theory diagrams was to capture the organizational structure of living systems, rather than focusing on rate-dependent, mechanistic, dynamical descriptions~\citep{varenne2013mathematical, lane2024robert}. If relational models were introduced precisely because they avoid the limitations of state-space dynamics with fixed transition functions, then temporal parametrization must not be treated as a return to the very framework relational biology was designed to overcome. The problem, rather, is to show that temporality is already implicit in self-referential organization. In this section, we argue that temporally unfolding a semantically closed organization is not an external dynamical supplement to a static diagram, but the minimal way in which organizational closure becomes operationally intelligible.
Relational models are powerful because they describe entailment relations rather than merely trajectories in a predefined state space~\citep{louie2013more}. In Rosen's original terms, what matters for living organization is not only how a material system changes state, but how the efficient causes responsible for those changes are themselves produced and maintained within the system~\citep{rosen1991life}. This is why relational biology provides a natural language for semantic closure (i.e., closure to efficient causation), because it represents the organization of production, replacement, and constraint without reducing it to a single transition function. Still, this strength also creates an apparent difficulty. A relational diagram can specify the organization of self-production, but organisms do not exist as timeless diagrams~\citep{korbak2023self}. They grow, repair, develop, adapt, and evolve; their constraints persist only by being continually regenerated, and their functional roles are maintained only through processes that unfold at different rates.
Thus, if closure to efficient causation (i.e., organizational closure) is represented only as a time-invariant diagram, we risk losing the very features that make living organization precarious, adaptive, and agentive~\citep{abramsky2025open}. The challenge, then, is not simply to “add dynamics” to relational biology and its closed diagrams. Doing so in the conventional way would risk returning to state-space models in which the relevant possibilities are already fixed in advance~\citep{kauffman2021world}. Instead, we need to ask whether temporality can be reintroduced from within the logic of closure itself. A first approach to this problem was proposed by~\citet{korbak2023self}, who suggested the use of probabilistic graphical models to represent temporally unfolded $(M, R)$-systems. However, the author did not adequately justify the introduction of a temporal dimension beyond the need for representation. As we will elaborately explain in the following, here the key to this move is impredicativity.
The crucial step mentioned above was already aspired by~\citet{varela1975calculus}'s attempt to construct a non-numerical calculus for self-reference. In~\citet{SpencerBrown1969Laws}'s calculus of indications, drawing a distinction generates an indicational space: there is a marked side, an unmarked side, and a boundary whose crossing makes indication possible. Varela's move was then to ask what happens when such a distinction is re-entered into the very space that it distinguishes~\citep{varela1975calculus}. Re-entry in this context is not merely another operation within a pre-given space, but a peculiar procedure in which an indication becomes implicated in the domain that it indicates. For this reason, as~\citet{reichel2011snakes} emphasizes, whereas distinction produces space, re-entry produces time; the system cannot be grasped as a completed spatial form without also being grasped as a process of return, recurrence, or self-indication.
This is why impredicativity is not adequately understood as a static relation of the form $x = \neg x$. In self-reference, the same term appears both as that which operates and as that upon which the operation is performed. Varela described this as the blending of operator and operand, a situation that cannot be held in a single atemporal act of representation~\citep[p.~20]{varela1975calculus}. Cognitively and formally, the closing circle must be traversed; what is produced must become capable of participating in the production of the conditions that produced it. In autopoietic terms, this means that the invariance of a unity and the indefinite recursion that sustains such invariance are inseparable~\citep{VarelaEtAl1974, Varela1979Principles}. The living organism is not simply a thing that persists through time; it is a unity whose persistence consists in the recursive production of the distinction between itself and its medium~\citep{maturana1980}.
\citet{varela1975calculus}'s \emph{autonomous state} captures this ambiguity. It can be read spatially, as a compact notation for re-entry, but it can also be read operationally, as an injunction to re-enter; not merely the name of a self-crossing form, but the demand that the form continue crossing itself~\citep{reichel2011snakes}. This double reading is biologically important. An autonomous organization does not first exist as a completed object and then later interact with an environment. Rather, through its own operations, it produces a boundary, distinguishes itself from what it is not, and thereby brings forth a domain of possible perturbations. This is the sense in which \emph{structural coupling} helps clarify the question: an organism is materially and energetically open, but organizationally closed in the sense that perturbations acquire significance only through the organization that the system itself maintains~\citep{Varela1979Principles, maturana1980}.
The later development of these ideas in waveform arithmetic makes the point even sharper. Self-cross can be interpreted either as a spatial abbreviation for an infinite nesting of distinctions, or as the temporal unfolding of an oscillation between markedness and unmarkedness~\citep{kauffman1980form}. In this sense, the apparent infinity of self-reference is not an infinity that expands indefinitely outward, as if a real organism had to contain an actually completed infinite regress. Rather, it is an infinity folded into a finite form. The fixed point, or \emph{Eigenform}, is the spatial view of an oscillatory process, whereas the corresponding sequence is its temporal context~\citep{kauffman1987self}. Thus, a self-referential organization is finite as a form, but indefinite as a process of self-maintenance~\citep{kauffman2002laws}.
This observation is central for avoiding a common misunderstanding.~\citet{varela1975calculus}'s calculus is not simply a three-valued logic, nor a complete biological theory, nor a recipe for constructing autonomous systems~\citep{reichel2011snakes}. Its importance lies in providing a formal notation for the relation between a life's structure and its dynamic unfoldment~\citep{Varela1979Principles}. The point is not that living systems literally compute Varela's calculus, but that the calculus displays a structural feature that any adequate theory of autonomy must respect: a self-producing unity cannot be represented only as a static object, because its identity depends on the recurrence of the operations that continually produce it.~\citet{varela1978arithmetic}'s \emph{arithmetic of closure} can be read in the same spirit, as an attempt to formalize closure without reducing it to an externally specified sequence of states.
This observation allows us to clarify in what sense organizationally closed systems must be temporally unfolded. Every physical system can of course be described dynamically, and many non-living systems exhibit cycles, feedback, oscillations, and recurrence. In those cases, however, time can be added as an external parameter governing the evolution of states~\citep{jaeger2023fourth}. In living organizations, by contrast, temporality is internal to the intelligibility of the organization itself, because the same organization is both product and producer, both constraint and constrained process, both boundary and boundary-producing activity~\citep{varela1975calculus, reichel2011snakes}. Therefore, time is not imposed on closure from the outside---as if one first had a complete organization and then decided to animate it, just as~\citet{korbak2023self} did. Rather, once self-referentiality is achieved via semantic closure, the organization must be unfolded in time in order to be understood as an organization at all~\citep{Varela1979Principles}. A closed relational model is therefore not a frozen picture of life, but a compressed representation of a circular process whose intelligibility depends on temporal traversal.
The foregoing allows us to clarify the status of the temporal parameterization of~\citet{korbak2023self} and of our extension thereof to $(F, A)$-systems~\citep{lopez2025closing}. A thermostat, an autocatalytic loop, or a chemical cycle may be represented as a loop of transformations, but closure to efficient causation requires more than the recurrence of processes~\citep{cardenas2010closure}. It requires that the constraints or efficient causes that make the processes possible are themselves produced and maintained within the organization~\citep{montevil2015biological}. In this sense, closure is not only circular causality, but inter-level and precariously self-maintaining~\citep{nave2025drive}. From this perspective, the arrows of a relational diagram should be read as a compressed account of processual dependence; they do not merely indicate abstract mappings, but processes whose organizational roles are maintained only across characteristic temporal scales. Temporal unfolding therefore makes explicit what the diagram presupposes: that closure is an achievement sustained through the continual regeneration of constraints~\citep{mossio2010organisational}.
The connection between self-reference and time also highlights the connection of organizational closure and anticipation.~\citet{rosen1978anticipatory} defined anticipatory systems as systems that contain internal predictive models of themselves and their environments, allowing present behavior to depend on modeled future states.~\citet{louie2012anticipation} later developed this insight in relational terms, showing that anticipation is not an accidental add-on to living systems but is deeply connected to the topology of relational organization. If a closed organization contains, in some form, the conditions of its own continued production, then it already contains a primitive relation between present organization and future viability~\citep{louie2013more}. The framework proposed here develops this point constructively.
Temporal parametrization does not insert an external predictive module into an otherwise reactive system. Instead, it shows how a self-referential organization, once unfolded across multiple characteristic timescales, can acquire an endogenous dependency structure in which present processes constrain future possibilities~\citep{lopez2025closing}. Anticipation here is thus not a mysterious reversal of causality, but the organization-mediated use of present states, traces, and constraints to bias future trajectories before perturbations have fully unfolded~\citep{louie2010robert}. This is the conceptual bridge to the next section. If self-reference requires temporal unfolding, and if temporal unfolding exposes the anticipatory structure implicit in closure, then the next task is to formalize this unfolding. We therefore turn to temporally parametrized $(F, A)$-systems, where each constitutive mapping is associated with a characteristic timescale and the resulting organization can be redesignated as a non-fixed, history-dependent Asynchronous Dynamic Bayesian Network.
\section{Temporally Parametrized \texorpdfstring{$(F,A)$}{(F, A)}-systems}
The previous section established that self-referential closure cannot be fully understood as a static relation. If a living organization is both product and producer, both constraint and constrained process, then its relational structure must be unfolded across the characteristic timescales through which its constitutive processes are produced, maintained, and transformed. The aim of this section is to make this move explicit for Hofmeyr's \((F,A)\)-systems. Rather than simply repeating the full construction developed in~\citet{lopez2025closing}, we summarize the formal steps needed for the present argument: first, we recall why \((F,A)\)-systems provide a biologically realizable model of semantic closure; second, we extend them to include environmental sensing and response; third, we assign characteristic timescales to their constitutive mappings; and fourth, we redescribe the resulting temporal organization as a history-dependent Asynchronous Dynamic Bayesian Network (ADBN).
\citet{hofmeyr2021biochemically}'s (Fabrication, Assembly)-systems refine~\citet{rosen1991life}'s (Metabolism, Repair)-systems by replacing the overly restrictive metabolism-repair vocabulary with a well-grounded biochemical distinction between fabrication and assembly. Their importance for the present paper is that they make explicit how a system can remain closed to efficient causation while remaining open to formal causation~\citep[p. 12]{hofmeyr2021biochemically}. In such a system, the organization manufactures the efficient causes required for its own continuation, while \emph{free-standing} formal causes provide heritable and revisable specifications that can alter the range of admissible transformations~\citep{hofmeyr2018causation}. In the jargon we previously introduced, $(F, A)$-systems are therefore not merely autocatalytic or self-maintaining; they are organizationally closed and semantically mediated, best fulfilling the criteria for standing in a full modeling relation to the causal entailments of a modern living cell~\citep[p. 4]{hofmeyr2021biochemically}.
This is why $(F, A)$-systems are an appropriate starting point for a theory of agency. They already contain the minimal ingredients needed to distinguish living organizations from both dissipative structures and conventional machines: material openness, closure to efficient causation, internally grounded finality, and openness to formal causation. Yet, the original $(F, A)$-systems as a model of living organization still remains incomplete for the purposes of the present paper. Agency is not only about self-maintenance, but also about being coupled to an environment in a way that permits sensing, response, and context-sensitive modulation of its own activity~\citep{fabregas2026organism}. Thus, before temporalizing the model, we first recall the ecological extension introduced in~\citet{lopez2025closing}.
As explained above, a self-manufacturing organization that lacks explicit sensing and response remains too internally focused to ground agency. For this reason, the $(F, A)$-system must be extended with processes that connect external signals, internal signals, and intracellular responses. Let $I=\{I_1,I_2,I_3,I_4\}$ be an extended set of free-standing formal causes, where $I_3$ and $I_4$ respectively encode the fabrication of sensing and response architectures. Associated with these instructions are the mappings
\[
X \xrightarrow{f_3} Y \xrightarrow{f_4} Z,
\]
where $X$ denotes external signals, $Y$ internal signals, and $Z$ intracellular responses. These processes are not simply additional metabolic reactions. They are the minimal formal representation of measurement and control at the organism-environment interface~\citep{cariani1989design, cariani2011semiotics}. In this way, we can extend Hofmeyr's $(F, A)$-systems via the following diagram.
\begin{equation}
\label{d:hofmeyr-ext}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=0 cm]
& X \ar[r,thick] & Y \ar[r,thick] & Z \\
&& f = I \times \{f_1\}+f_3+f_4+f_2 \ar[lld,dashed,thick,start anchor={[xshift=-1ex]}]
\ar[rr,dashed,thick] \ar[ul,dashed,thick,start anchor={[xshift=6ex]}]
\ar[u,dashed,thick,start anchor={[xshift=6ex]}] & & D \ar[d,thick] \\
A \ar[rr,thick] & & B_1+B_2+B_3+B_4 \ar[u,thick] & & \Phi \ar[ll,thick]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
In the extended diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr-ext}), $B_3$ and $B_4$ denote the components from which the sensing and response machinery are respectively assembled. The point is not that every organism literally implements this exact coarse-graining, but that any agentive organization must include some analog of this architecture: a way of being affected by the environment, a way of internally transforming that perturbation, and a way of acting back upon itself or the environment~\citep{cariani1998epistemic}. In biosemiotic terms, this is the minimal interface through which material perturbations become measurable signs and through which internal states become control processes~\citep{pattee1991measurement, pattee1993limitations}. In ecological terms, it opens the system to \emph{affordances}, understood not as pre-given external objects, but as relational possibilities for action enacted by an organism with a particular organization~\citep{gibson1979ecological, kauffman2021world}.
The previous sections argued that closure must be temporally unfolded because self-reference is processual. Formally, this means that each constitutive mapping in the extended $(F, A)$-system must be associated with a characteristic timescale. Let's begin by rewriting the extended organization~(\ref{d:hofmeyr-ext}) as
\begin{align}
&A \xrightarrow{f} B \xrightarrow{\Phi_f} H(A,B), \nonumber \\
&D \xrightarrow{f} H\left(B,H(A,B)\right), \nonumber \\
&X \xrightarrow{f_3} Y \xrightarrow{f_4} Z.
\label{eq:FA-explicit-agency}
\end{align}
Here $f=I\times\{f_1\}+f_2+f_3+f_4$, $I=\{I_1,I_2,I_3,I_4\}$, and $B=B_1+B_2+B_3+B_4$. Additionally, $H(X, Y)$ is a proper subset of the hom-set of all mappings from $X$ to $Y$. This notation compresses the self-manufacturing, interpretive, sensing, and response components into a single relational organization. To make the temporal structure more transparent, let $C=H(A, B)$ and $E=H(B,H(A, B))$, and rewrite the mappings as
\begin{align}
&A \xrightarrow{\phi} B \xrightarrow{\psi} C, \nonumber \\
&D \xrightarrow{\theta} E, \nonumber \\
&X \xrightarrow{\alpha} Y \xrightarrow{\beta} Z.
\label{eq:FA-simplified-agency}
\end{align}
Following the logic of~\citet{montevil2015biological}, we now assign a characteristic timescale $\tau_x$ to each process $x\in\{\phi,\psi,\theta,\alpha,\beta\}$:
\begin{align}
&A \xrightarrow[\tau_{\phi}]{\phi} B \xrightarrow[\tau_{\psi}]{\psi} C, \nonumber \\
&D \xrightarrow[\tau_{\theta}]{\theta} E, \nonumber \\
&X \xrightarrow[\tau_{\alpha}]{\alpha} Y \xrightarrow[\tau_{\beta}]{\beta} Z.
\label{eq:FA-temporal-agency}
\end{align}
This is the formal point at which relational organization becomes temporally articulated. The timescales should not be interpreted as external clock parameters imposed on an otherwise completed system. They express the fact that fabrication, assembly, interpretation, sensing, and response are maintained at different rates and that the organization persists only by coordinating these rates across time~\citep{bich2022organization, bechtel2024situating}. Nevertheless, as well-argued by~\citet{montevil2015biological}, every biological constraint must be considered at two scales: the scale at which it constrains another process and the scale at which it is itself produced or maintained. Thus, temporal coherence in a closed organization requires more than the existence of multiple timescales. It requires that the production and operation of constraints remain mutually coordinated~\citep{wilson2022scaffolding, kubiak2024timing}.
We can express this by defining $\Delta_{\phi}=\tau_{\phi}-\tau_{\psi}$, $\Delta_{\psi}=\tau_{\psi}-\tau_{\theta}$, $\Delta_{\theta}=\tau_{\theta}-\tau_{\psi}$, $\Delta_{\alpha}=\tau_{\alpha}-\tau_{\psi}$, and $\Delta_{\beta}=\tau_{\beta}-\tau_{\psi}$. Since the system is closed to efficient causation, at least one $\Delta_i$ must be positive and another $\Delta_j$, with $j\neq i$, must be negative~\citep[p. 8--9]{montevil2015biological}. This condition prevents the temporalized organization from collapsing into a linear chain of externally ordered processes. It expresses the interdependence of processes that must be fast enough to act as constraints and slow enough to be maintained as constraints. Following~\citet{korbak2023self}, once the extended $(F, A)$-system~(\ref{d:hofmeyr-ext}) is temporally parametrized, it can be redescribed as an ADBN, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ADBN}. This is not because the organism is literally a Bayesian network, nor because Bayesian formalisms provide the metaphysical foundation of life. Rather, the ADBN is a formal redescription of the dependency structure induced by temporally unfolded closure; it allows us to represent how the status of one component-process at time $t$ constrains the possible circumstances of other component-processes at $t+\tau$, where $\tau=\tau(\tau_\phi,\tau_\psi,\tau_\theta,\tau_\alpha,\tau_\beta)$. This is the same formal move introduced in~\citet{lopez2025closing}, but here it is interpreted as the mathematical bridge between closure, anticipation, and agency.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=5.5em, row sep=40ex, >={Latex}, thick]
A_t \arrow[r,"\phi_t"] & B_t \arrow[r,"\psi_t"] & C_t &
D_t \arrow[r,"\theta_t"] & E_t &
X_t \arrow[r,"\alpha_t"] & Y_t \arrow[r,"\beta_t"] & Z_t \\
A_{t+\tau} \arrow[r,"\phi_{t+\tau}"{name=phi_ttau}] &
B_{t+\tau} \arrow[r,"\psi_{t+\tau}"{name=psi_ttau}] & C_{t+\tau} &
D_{t+\tau} \arrow[r,"\theta_{t+\tau}"{name=theta_ttau}] & E_{t+\tau} &
X_{t+\tau} \arrow[r,"\alpha_{t+\tau}"{name=alpha_ttau}] &
Y_{t+\tau} \arrow[r,"\beta_{t+\tau}"{name=beta_ttau}] & Z_{t+\tau}
%
% ---- dashed cross-row maps (slightly shortened so heads are clear) ----
\arrow[from=1-3, to=phi_ttau, bend right=18, dashed, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\phi}"']
\arrow[from=1-3, to=theta_ttau, bend right=38, dashed, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\theta}"]
\arrow[from=1-5, to=psi_ttau, bend right=10, dashed, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\psi}"']
\arrow[from=1-3, to=alpha_ttau, bend right=20, dashed, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\alpha}"]
\arrow[from=1-3, to=beta_ttau, bend left=20, dashed, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\beta}"']
\end{tikzcd}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{Temporal parametrization of extended (F, A)-systems.}
\label{fig:ADBN}
\end{figure*}
The visual structure of the ADBN should be read carefully. In Figure~\ref{fig:ADBN}, the horizontal arrows represent the relational mappings internal to each time slice, while the cross-time arrows represent dependencies induced by the characteristic timescales of the organization. In the corresponding probabilistic graphical model (shown in Figure~\ref{fig:PGM}), both components and processes are treated as random variables, and dashed temporal dependencies are redescribed as probabilistic dependencies. In this sense, the ADBN does not replace the relational model as such, but it translates the relational model into a form in which temporal dependency, uncertainty, and context-sensitivity can be explicitly represented.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{width=\textwidth}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=3.2em, row sep=32ex, >={Latex}, thick]
A_t \arrow[r] & \phi_t \arrow[r] & B_t \arrow[r] & \psi_t \arrow[r] & C_t &
D_t \arrow[r] & \theta_t \arrow[r] & E_t &
X_t \arrow[r] & \alpha_t \arrow[r] & Y_t \arrow[r] & \beta_t \arrow[r] & Z_t \\
A_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \phi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & B_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \psi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & C_{t+\tau} &
D_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \theta_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & E_{t+\tau} &
X_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \alpha_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & Y_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \beta_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & Z_{t+\tau}
%
% ---- cross-row maps (curvatures tuned for the new spacing) ----
\arrow[from=1-5, bend right=12, to=2-2, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\phi}"]
\arrow[from=1-5, bend right=22, to=2-7, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\theta}"]
\arrow[from=1-8, bend right=12, to=2-4, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\psi}"]
\arrow[from=1-5, bend right=12, to=2-10, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\alpha}"]
\arrow[from=1-5, bend left=12, to=2-12, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\beta}"]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{Probabilistic Graphical Model associated to the temporal parametrization of extended (F, A)-systems.}
\label{fig:PGM}
\end{figure*}
Furthermore, the ADBN permits the factorization of a joint distribution over the temporally indexed components and processes of the organization~\citep[p. 45]{korbak2023self}. Using the notation adopted in Figures~\ref{fig:ADBN} and~\ref{fig:PGM}, the distribution takes the form
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
\begin{aligned}
p(&\phi_{\tau}, \psi_{\tau}, \theta_{\tau}, \alpha_{\tau}, \beta_{\tau},
A_{\tau}, B_{\tau}, C_{\tau}, D_{\tau}, E_{\tau}, X_{\tau}, Y_{\tau}, Z_{\tau}, \ldots, \\
& \phi_{T}, \psi_{T}, \theta_{T}, \alpha_{T}, \beta_{T}, A_{T}, B_{T}, C_{T}, D_{T}, E_{T}, X_{T}, Y_{T}, Z_{T}) =
\\
&\prod_{t \ge 0}^{T-\tau} \Big[
p(A_{t+\tau})
\, p(\phi_{t+\tau} \mid A_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(B_{t+\tau} \mid \phi_{t+\tau})
\, p(\psi_{t+\tau} \mid B_{t+\tau}, E_t)
\\
&\qquad\quad
p(C_{t+\tau} \mid \psi_{t+\tau})
\, p(D_{t+\tau})
\, p(\theta_{t+\tau} \mid D_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(E_{t+\tau} \mid \theta_{t+\tau})
\, p(X_{t+\tau})
\\
&\qquad\quad
p(\alpha_{t+\tau} \mid X_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(Y_{t+\tau} \mid \alpha_{t+\tau})
\, p(\beta_{t+\tau} \mid Y_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(Z_{t+\tau} \mid \beta_{t+\tau}) \Big].
\end{aligned}
$}
\label{eq:joint-distribution-temporal-FA}
\end{equation}
This factorization is useful because it makes explicit how internal organization, environmental perturbation, and processual history jointly constrain future states. The terms involving $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ represent the organism-environment interface, while the terms involving $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$, and $E$ represent the self-manufacturing organization that gives such environmental coupling biological significance. The result is not a fixed transition function, but a temporally extended dependency structure. The distribution should therefore be interpreted in a restricted way. \emph{It is not} a complete law of the organism, and \emph{it is not} a universal principle from which life or agency can be deduced. \emph{It is} a formal redescription of a specific kind of organization once that organization has already been biologically identified as semantically closed. This restriction is crucial because it prevents the Bayesian formalism from becoming ontologically inflated~\citep{nave2025drive}. In the present framework, relational closure comes first; probabilistic redescription comes second. The ADBN is a way of representing how closure unfolds through time, not a replacement for closure.
Maybe the most important difference between the construction shown above and a conventional state-space model is that the derived probability distribution shown in equation~(\ref{eq:joint-distribution-temporal-FA}) should not be understood as fixed once and for all. A living organization does not merely update parameters inside a pre-given space of possibilities~\citep{witherington2014self}. In contrast, through adaptation, development, and material turnover, a living organization may alter which variables matter, which couplings are relevant, which measurements are possible, and which actions are available~\citep{pattee1972nature, longo2012no}. At the weakest level, the ADBN may update probabilities over a fixed graph. At a stronger level, the graph itself may be reorganized. At the strongest level, the repertoire of variables, substrates, interpretive relations, and control processes may change.
This last point is essential for the theory of agency developed in this paper. If the induced ADBN were merely a fixed graphical model with parameter updates, it would not capture the kind of plasticity required for open-ended biological organization~\citep{kauffman2019world, nave2025drive}. The stronger claim is that semantically closed systems can rebuild the very dependency structures through which they anticipate and act. The ADBN is therefore not a static internal model but a historically maintained and revisable organization. It is continuously regenerated by the same material and semiotic processes that it helps coordinate. This also clarifies the relation between the present framework and active inference. Our claim is not that free-energy minimization is a first principle of life, nor that a generative model is simply given in advance~\citep{di2022laying}. Rather, a primitive generative model can be derived from the temporal unfolding of an already closed organization. Thus, in contrast to~\citet{korbak2021computational}, we propose that active-inference language must be used locally and carefully: organisms can be redescribed as probabilistically tailoring their internal and environmental couplings only because their relational organization already supplies the measurement and control architecture that makes such tailoring biologically meaningful. We will expand upon this argument and discussion later in this paper.
A temporalized $(F, A)$-system therefore gives a constructive interpretation of Rosennean anticipation. An anticipatory system is not merely a system that reacts quickly to perturbations, nor one that contains an externally inserted predictive module. It is a system whose present organization constrains possible future states through an internal model of its own conditions of persistence~\citep{rosen1978anticipatory, louie2013more}. In the present framework, that internal model is not a fixed differential-equation surrogate, as originally suggested by~\citet{rosen2011anticipatory}; it is the revisable dependency structure generated by the temporal unfolding of semantic closure~\citep[p. 9]{lopez2025closing}. This is why our ADBN approach matters for naturalizing agency. The organism's present state does not simply cause the next state according to a fixed transition rule. Rather, the present organization weights, canalizes, and constrains possible futures in light of its own continued viability~\citep{juarrero1999dynamics}. Environmental signals become relevant because they enter a closed organization that can measure them, interpret them, and act upon them.
Importantly, agency does not yet follow automatically from this construction, but the construction supplies the minimal formal space in which agency can be defined: the space between mere temporal dependency and anticipatory modulation of organism--environment coupling. The next section uses this formal apparatus to derive weaker temporalized organizations. The point will not be to decide, by stipulation, which systems are agents and which are not. Rather, by progressively weakening temporally parametrized $(F, A)$-systems, we can ask which organizational features are lost at each step and how this loss affects the capacity for anticipation, adaptive action, and open-ended reconstruction. In this way, the ADBN construction becomes the basis for a graded hierarchy from proto-agency to robust agency.
\section{How Did Proto-Agency Become Agency?}
The previous section showed that temporally parametrized $(F, A)$-systems induce history-dependent probabilistic structures capable of redescribing the temporal organization of semantic closure. We now proceed to ask what happens when this organization is progressively weakened. The strategy follows the same decomposition we used in~\citet{lopez2025closing}, but the question is different. There, weaker diagrams were used to reconstruct the origin and early evolution of semantic closure. Here, the same diagrams are temporally unfolded in order to ask how proto-agential chemical dependencies could acquire the organizational features required for agency. Thus, the section should be read in two directions. Mathematically, we proceed from the richest diagram toward weaker diagrams by removing sensing-response, free-standing formal causes, informed efficient causes, and finally closure itself. Evolutionarily, however, the interpretation runs in the opposite direction: from elemental chemical transformations, to open hierarchical dependencies, to primitive memory, to autogenic closure, to semantically mediated self-production, and finally to situated measurement-control architectures. The aim is not to stipulate where agency begins, but to identify which dependency structures are gained or lost at each stage.
The derivation of weaker relational models already showed that semantic closure does not appear all at once~\citep{lopez2025closing}. It has a prehistory in simpler chemical organizations, some of which possess structured dependency without closure, some of which possess primitive memory without autonomy, and some of which possess closure without explicit environmental coupling. Temporalizing these diagrams allows us to ask a sharper question: not only what organization a system has, but what kind of future-oriented dependency structure that organization can support. This distinction matters because agency is not the same as self-maintenance~\citep{rosslenbroich2024agency}. A system may persist, reproduce, or even participate in autocatalytic amplification without yet possessing an endogenous anticipatory structure capable of modulating its coupling with the environment~\citep{deacon2013teleology}. The point of deriving the ADBNs and associated joint distributions for weaker diagrams is therefore to locate the formal precursors of agency, including memory, closure, constraint-maintenance, environmental sensitivity, and finally revisable measurement-control.
\subsection{Removing explicit sensing and response}
The first weakening removes the explicit sensing-response architecture from the extended $(F, A)$-system. In the full model represented by diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr-ext}), the mappings \(X \xrightarrow{f_3} Y \xrightarrow{f_4} Z\) depict the minimal interface through which environmental perturbations become internally measurable and internally generated states become control processes. Removing these mappings produces diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr_full}), which retains closure to efficient causation and free-standing formal causes, but no longer contains an explicit organism-environment measurement-control channel.
\begin{equation}
\label{d:hofmeyr_full}
\begin{tikzcd}
& I^*\times\{f_1\}+f_2 \arrow[dl, dashed, thick] \arrow[r, dashed, thick] & D \arrow[d, thick] \\
A \arrow[r, thick] & \arrow[u, thick] B_1+B_2 & \arrow[l, dashed, thick] \Phi_f
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
This weakening is important because it separates semantic closure from situated agency. Diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr_full}) can still be organizationally autonomous in the sense that the relevant efficient causes are internally produced and maintained. It can also remain open to formal causation, because free-standing formal causes still specify admissible transformations. Yet, without explicit sensing and response, the system cannot yet differentially modulate its coupling to the environment in the sense required for agency~\citep{Robbins2012Primer}. It is therefore better interpreted as a semantically closed autonomous organization rather than as a fully agentive organization. The associated distribution~(\ref{eq:distro-FA-1}) preserves the main self-manufacturing dependency structure of the richer model while removing the environmental terms \(X,Y,Z,\alpha,\beta\). This loss is conceptually decisive. The distribution still redescribes a temporally coherent organization, but it no longer includes the variables through which environmental signals are converted into internal regulatory states and responses. Thus, what has been lost is not closure, but situated measurement-control.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{width=\textwidth}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=3.2em, row sep=32ex, >={Latex}, thick]
A_t \arrow[r] & \phi_t \arrow[r] & B_t \arrow[r] & \psi_t \arrow[r] & C_t &
D_t \arrow[r] & \theta_t \arrow[r] & E_t \\
A_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \phi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & B_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \psi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & C_{t+\tau} &
D_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \theta_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & E_{t+\tau}
%
% ---- cross-row maps (curvatures tuned for the new spacing) ----
\arrow[from=1-5, bend right=12, to=2-2, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\phi}"]
\arrow[from=1-5, bend right=22, to=2-7, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\theta}"]
\arrow[from=1-8, bend right=12, to=2-4, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\psi}"]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{Probabilistic Graphical Model associated to the temporal parametrization of diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr_full}).}
\label{fig:PGM-1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
\begin{aligned}
p(&\phi_{\tau}, \psi_{\tau}, \theta_{\tau},
A_{\tau}, B_{\tau}, C_{\tau}, D_{\tau}, E_{\tau}, \ldots, \phi_{T}, \psi_{T}, \theta_{T}, A_{T}, B_{T}, C_{T}, D_{T}, E_{T}) =
\\
&\prod_{t \ge 0}^{T-\tau} \Big[
p(A_{t+\tau})
\, p(\phi_{t+\tau} \mid A_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(B_{t+\tau} \mid \phi_{t+\tau})
\, p(\psi_{t+\tau} \mid B_{t+\tau}, E_t)
\\
&\qquad\quad
p(C_{t+\tau} \mid \psi_{t+\tau})
\, p(D_{t+\tau})
\, p(\theta_{t+\tau} \mid D_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(E_{t+\tau} \mid \theta_{t+\tau}) \Big].
\end{aligned}
$}
\label{eq:distro-FA-1}
\end{equation}
\subsection{From free-standing formal causes to intrinsic material memory}
Following~\citet{lopez2025closing}, the next weakening removes the free-standing formal causes \(I^*=\{I_1,I_2\}\). In diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr_succesor}), the material causes \(A_1^*+A_2^*\) become informed material causes: substrates whose relevant syntax is materially inscribed rather than separately specified by independent symbolic structures~\citep{deacon2014transition}. This corresponds to a plausible pre-digital stage in which organization is not yet controlled by free-standing instructions, but by intrinsic physico-chemical regularities~\citep{pattee2012does}.
\begin{equation}
\label{d:hofmeyr_succesor}
\begin{tikzcd}
& f_1+f_2 \arrow[dl, color=black, dashed, thick] \arrow[r, color=black, dashed, thick] & D \arrow[d, color=black, thick] \\
A_1^* + A_2^* \arrow[r, color=black, thick] & \arrow[u, color=black, thick] B_1+ B_2 & \arrow[l, color=black, dashed, thick] \Phi_f
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
This transition marks an important reduction in evolvability. Free-standing formal causes allow instructions to be recombined, inherited, and revised with a degree of independence from the material processes they constrain~\citep{hofmeyr2018causation}. Informed material causes can still bias transformations, but their formal role remains embedded in their own material structure~\citep{pattee2021symbol}. The system therefore retains a kind of proto-semantic organization, but its capacity for syntactic openness is much more limited. The distribution~(\ref{eq:distro-FA-2}) makes this limitation visible. Formally, it remains close to~(\ref{eq:distro-FA-1}), because the temporal dependencies among \(\phi\), \(\psi\), and \(\theta\) are still present. Biologically, however, the interpretation changes: the formal cause is no longer a separable instruction-like component but an intrinsic constraint of the material substrate. This is a weaker anticipation structure, because the system can still bias future states, but it cannot yet freely rewrite the symbolic basis through which those futures are specified~\citep{egbert2023behaviour}.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{width=\textwidth}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=3.2em, row sep=32ex, >={Latex}, thick]
A^{*}_t \arrow[r] & \phi_t \arrow[r] & B_t \arrow[r] & \psi_t \arrow[r] & C_t &
D_t \arrow[r] & \theta_t \arrow[r] & E_t \\
A^{*}_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \phi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & B_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \psi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & C_{t+\tau} &
D_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \theta_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & E_{t+\tau}
%
% ---- cross-row maps (curvatures tuned for the new spacing) ----
\arrow[from=1-5, bend right=12, to=2-2, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\phi}"]
\arrow[from=1-5, bend right=22, to=2-7, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\theta}"]
\arrow[from=1-8, bend right=12, to=2-4, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\psi}"]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{Probabilistic Graphical Model associated to the temporal parametrization of diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr_succesor}).}
\label{fig:PGM-2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
\begin{aligned}
p(&\phi_{\tau}, \psi_{\tau}, \theta_{\tau},
A^{*}_{\tau}, B_{\tau}, C_{\tau}, D_{\tau}, E_{\tau}, \ldots, \phi_{T}, \psi_{T}, \theta_{T}, A^{*}_{T}, B_{T}, C_{T}, D_{T}, E_{T}) =
\\
&\prod_{t \ge 0}^{T-\tau} \Big[
p(A^{*}_{t+\tau})
\, p(\phi_{t+\tau} \mid A^{*}_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(B_{t+\tau} \mid \phi_{t+\tau})
\, p(\psi_{t+\tau} \mid B_{t+\tau}, E_t)
\\
&\qquad\quad
p(C_{t+\tau} \mid \psi_{t+\tau})
\, p(D_{t+\tau})
\, p(\theta_{t+\tau} \mid D_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(E_{t+\tau} \mid \theta_{t+\tau}) \Big].
\end{aligned}
$}
\label{eq:distro-FA-2}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Toward autogenic closure}
The next weakening produces diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr_ss}), where \(D\) becomes an informed material cause \(D^*\), and \(f_2\) is replaced by a non-informed efficient cause \(f_2^*\). This stage remains especially important because it retains a form of hierarchical closure while reducing the machinery needed to support it. It therefore approximates the kind of pre-cellular organization described by~\citet{katla2025self}, in which self-maintenance is not yet genetically or digitally controlled, but still depends on a mutually reinforcing relation between transformation and constraint.
\begin{equation}
\label{d:hofmeyr_ss}
\begin{tikzcd}
& f_1+f_2^* \arrow[dl, color=black, dashed, thick] \arrow[r, color=black, dashed, thick] & D^* \arrow[d, color=black, thick] \\
A_1^* + A_2^* \arrow[r, color=black, thick] & \arrow[u, color=black, thick] B_1+ B_2 & \arrow[l, color=black, dashed, thick] \Phi_f
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
In this sense, diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr_ss}) is one of the central thresholds in the section. It is not yet an agent, because it lacks explicit sensing-response and robust formal openness. Yet it is no longer a mere open reaction chain. It contains the minimal circularity needed for a system to maintain some of the conditions of its own continuation. In the language of agency, this is where proto-agency begins to become more than reactive chemistry: the system starts to preserve a dependency structure that makes its own future states non-arbitrary~\citep{moreno2018minimal}. The associated distribution~(\ref{eq:distro-FA-3}) preserves the same general temporal form as the previous two distributions, but the starred variables indicate a change in causal interpretation. What was previously handled by free-standing or informed efficient causes is now carried by materially inscribed constraints. Thus, the system still has temporal dependency and primitive internal constraint, but the anticipatory organization is less plastic. This helps distinguish primitive autonomy from the richer form of agency defended in this paper.
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
\begin{aligned}
p(&\phi_{\tau}, \psi_{\tau}, \theta_{\tau},
A^{*}_{\tau}, B_{\tau}, C_{\tau}, D^{*}_{\tau}, E_{\tau}, \ldots, \phi_{T}, \psi_{T}, \theta_{T}, A^{*}_{T}, B_{T}, C_{T}, D^{*}_{T}, E_{T}) =
\\
&\prod_{t \ge 0}^{T-\tau} \Big[
p(A^{*}_{t+\tau})
\, p(\phi_{t+\tau} \mid A^{*}_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(B_{t+\tau} \mid \phi_{t+\tau})
\, p(\psi_{t+\tau} \mid B_{t+\tau}, E_t)
\\
&\qquad\quad
p(C_{t+\tau} \mid \psi_{t+\tau})
\, p(D^{*}_{t+\tau})
\, p(\theta_{t+\tau} \mid D^{*}_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(E_{t+\tau} \mid \theta_{t+\tau}) \Big].
\end{aligned}
$}
\label{eq:distro-FA-3}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{width=\textwidth}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=3.2em, row sep=32ex, >={Latex}, thick]
A^{*}_t \arrow[r] & \phi_t \arrow[r] & B_t \arrow[r] & \psi_t \arrow[r] & C_t &
D^{*}_t \arrow[r] & \theta_t \arrow[r] & E_t \\
A^{*}_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \phi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & B_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \psi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & C_{t+\tau} &
D^{*}_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \theta_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & E_{t+\tau}
%
% ---- cross-row maps (curvatures tuned for the new spacing) ----
\arrow[from=1-5, bend right=12, to=2-2, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\phi}"]
\arrow[from=1-5, bend right=22, to=2-7, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\theta}"]
\arrow[from=1-8, bend right=12, to=2-4, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\psi}"]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{Probabilistic Graphical Model associated to the temporal parametrization of diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr_ss}).}
\label{fig:PGM-3}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Splitting the diagram: memory without closure and closure without agency}
Diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr_ss}) can be decomposed into two components. The first component, diagram~(\ref{d:component1}), has the form of a hierarchical dependency that is not closed to efficient causation. It can preserve a kind of memory, because previous products constrain later transformations, but it does not internally produce the whole network of efficient causes required for autonomous self-maintenance~\citep{hofmeyr2021biochemically}.
\begin{equation}
\label{d:component1}
\begin{tikzcd}
& f_1 \arrow[dl, color=black, dashed, thick] & \\
A_1^* \arrow[r, color=black, thick] & \arrow[u, color=black, thick] B_1 & \arrow[l, color=black, dashed, thick] \Phi_{f_1}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
The distribution~(\ref{eq:distro-FA-3-1}) should therefore be interpreted as a proto-inferential structure rather than as an autonomous agentive structure. The term \(C_t\) constrains the later production of \(\phi_{t+\tau}\), which means the system is no longer a memoryless reaction~\citep{duenas2019chemistry}. Yet the dependency does not close back on itself in the strong organizational sense. This is the kind of system that may already exhibit structured sensitivity to prior states, but whose organization is still externally dependent.
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{$
\begin{aligned}
p(&\phi_{\tau}, \psi_{\tau}, A^{*}_{\tau}, B_{\tau}, C_{\tau}, \ldots, \phi_{T}, \psi_{T}, A^{*}_{T}, B_{T}, C_{T}) =
\\
&\prod_{t \ge 0}^{T-\tau} \Big[
p(A^{*}_{t+\tau})
\, p(\phi_{t+\tau} \mid A^{*}_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(B_{t+\tau} \mid \phi_{t+\tau})
\, p(\psi_{t+\tau} \mid B_{t+\tau}) p(C_{t+\tau} \mid \psi_{t+\tau}) \Big].
\end{aligned}
$}
\label{eq:distro-FA-3-1}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=\columnwidth, center}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=1.6em, row sep=7ex, >={Latex}, thick]
A^{*}_t \arrow[r] & \phi_t \arrow[r] & B_t \arrow[r] & \psi_t \arrow[r] & C_t \\
A^{*}_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \phi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & B_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \psi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & C_{t+\tau}
%
% ---- cross-row maps (curvatures tuned for the new spacing) ----
\arrow[from=1-5, bend right=12, to=2-2, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\phi}"]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{Probabilistic Graphical Model associated to the temporal parametrization of diagram~(\ref{d:component1}).}
\label{fig:PGM-3-1}
\end{figure}
The second component, diagram~(\ref{d:component2}), is more interesting for agency. Unlike the first component, it retains a minimal closure relation. It resembles the autogenic logic discussed by~\citet{deacon2011incomplete}, where reciprocal catalytic and self-assembling processes begin to generate a system that is more than merely autocatalytic. Autocatalysis can amplify a reaction network, but by itself it is only self-promoting, not yet self-regulating or self-preserving. Closure becomes decisive when the system begins to maintain the constraints that prevent its own dissipation.
\begin{equation}
\label{d:component2}
\begin{tikzcd}
f_2^* \arrow[r, color=black, dashed, thick] & D^* \arrow[d, color=black, thick] \\
\arrow[u, color=black, thick] B_2 & \arrow[l, color=black, dashed, thick] \Phi_{f_2}
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
The revised distribution~(\ref{eq:distro-FA-3-2}) expresses this mutual enabling relation without duplicating conditional factors. The previous state of one process constrains the current production of the other, and vice versa. This is not yet full agency, but it is a minimal temporal form of self-maintaining anticipation: the system's present organization is conditioned by traces of its own prior organization. At this level, proto-agency becomes a real candidate rather than a metaphor, because the system begins to act as a locus of constraint maintenance~\citep{deacon2021molecules}.
\small
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
p(&\phi_{\tau}, \psi_{\tau}, B_{\tau}, D^{*}_{\tau}, \ldots,
\phi_{T}, \psi_{T}, B_{T}, D^{*}_{T}) =
\\
&\prod_{t\ge 0}^{T-\tau} \Big[
p(B_{t+\tau})
\, p(\phi_{t+\tau} \mid B_{t+\tau}, \psi_t)
\, p(D^{*}_{t+\tau} \mid \phi_{t+\tau})
\, p(\psi_{t+\tau} \mid D^{*}_{t+\tau}, \phi_t)
\Big].
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:distro-FA-3-2}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=\columnwidth, center}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=1.6em, row sep=7ex, >={Latex}, thick]
B_t \arrow[r] & \phi_t \arrow[r] & D^{*}_t \arrow[r] & \psi_t \\
B_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \phi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & D^{*}_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \psi_{t+\tau}
\arrow[from=1-4, bend left=14, to=2-2, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\phi}"]
\arrow[from=1-2, bend right=14, to=2-4, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\psi}"]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{Probabilistic graphical model associated with the temporal parametrization of diagram~(\ref{d:component2})}
\label{fig:PGM-3-2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Opening the loop: selection before closure}
According to~\citet{lopez2025closing}, the next weakening opens the closed component into diagrams~(\ref{d:no_closed}) and~(\ref{d:no_closed_2}). These diagrams retain structured dependency but lose closure to efficient causation. In evolutionary terms, they are important because selection need not wait for full agency or even full autonomy~\citep{kauffman1992origins}. Patterns can become differentially stabilized before they become agents, provided there is variation among patterns, differential persistence, and some channel through which the pattern is reconstructed~\citep{doolittle2018processes}. This stage connects the present formalism to broader evolutionary accounts of constraint maintenance. Selection can begin to act on patterns well before organism-style individuality is achieved, and its grip strengthens as systems invest more in integration, memory, and reconstruction~\citep{poledna2026towards}. The important point for our purposes is that selection can sculpt the precursors of agency without yet selecting agents. What is being selected is not yet an autonomous self, but a dependency pattern capable of persisting across perturbation cycles.
\begin{equation}
\label{d:no_closed}
\begin{tikzcd}
& \Phi_{f_2} \arrow[dl, color=black, dashed, thick] \\
B_2 \arrow[r, color=black, thick] & f_2^* \arrow[dl, color=black, dashed, thick]\\
D^* \arrow[r, color=black, thick] & F
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{d:no_closed_2}
\begin{tikzcd}
& f_2^* \arrow[dl, color=black, dashed, thick] \\
D^* \arrow[r, color=black, thick] & \Phi_{f_2} \arrow[dl, color=black, dashed, thick]\\
B_2 \arrow[r, color=black, thick] & F
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
The distribution~(\ref{eq:distro-FA-3-1-1}) captures this open dependency structure. A previous product \(C_t\) constrains the later process \(\phi_{t+\tau}\), but the system lacks the reciprocal closure required for autonomy. It is therefore misleading to call this organization agentive. It is better understood as a proto-agential precursor: a chemically realizable dependency structure in which history begins to matter, but not yet as the self-produced history of an autonomous system~\citep{duenas2019chemistry}.
\small
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
p(&\phi_{\tau}, \psi_{\tau}, B_{\tau}, C_{\tau}, D^{*}_{\tau}, F_{\tau}, \ldots,
\phi_{T}, \psi_{T}, B_{T}, C_{T}, D^{*}_{T}, F_{T}) =
\\
&\prod_{t=0}^{T-\tau} \Big[
p(B_{t+\tau})
\, p(\psi_{t+\tau} \mid B_{t+\tau})
\, p(C_{t+\tau} \mid \psi_{t+\tau})
\\
&\qquad\quad
p(D^{*}_{t+\tau})
\, p(\phi_{t+\tau} \mid D^{*}_{t+\tau}, C_t)
\, p(F_{t+\tau} \mid \phi_{t+\tau})
\Big].
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:distro-FA-3-1-1}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=\columnwidth, center}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=1.6em, row sep=7ex, >={Latex}, thick]
B_t \arrow[r] & \psi_t \arrow[r] & C_t &
D^{*}_t \arrow[r] & \phi_t \arrow[r] & F_t \\
B_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \psi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & C_{t+\tau} &
D^{*}_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & \phi_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & F_{t+\tau}
%
% ---- cross-row maps (curvatures tuned for the new spacing) ----
\arrow[from=1-3, bend right=15, to=2-5, shorten <=2pt, shorten >=2pt, "\tau_{\phi}"]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{Probabilistic Graphical Model associated to the temporal parametrization of diagram~(\ref{d:no_closed}).}
\label{fig:PGM-3-1-1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Elemental reactions as the lower bound}
At the lower bound we arrive at elemental reactions of the form shown in diagram~(\ref{d:elemental}). Such reactions can be temporally indexed, but they do not by themselves generate endogenous memory, closure, anticipation, or self-maintaining organization. They are therefore useful not because they are agentive, but because they mark the baseline from which the richer hierarchy departs.
\begin{equation}
\label{d:elemental}
\begin{tikzcd}
& f \arrow[dl, color=black, dashed, thick] \\
A \arrow[r, color=black, thick] & B
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
The associated distribution~(\ref{eq:distro-FA-elemental}) is correspondingly simple. It describes a transformation in which \(A_{t+\tau}\), \(f_{t+\tau}\), and \(B_{t+\tau}\) are related within a time-indexed process, but no previous organizational state constrains the current transformation. There is temporal succession, but not yet temporal self-reference. This is why elemental reactions may contribute to the origin of agency without themselves being proto-agents~\citep{poole2017chemical}.
\small
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
p(&f_{\tau}, A_{\tau}, B_{\tau} \ldots, f_{T}, A_{T}, B_{T}) = \\ &\prod_{t \ge 0}^{T-\tau} \Big[
p(A_{t+\tau})
\, p(f_{t+\tau} \mid A_{t+\tau})
\, p(B_{t+\tau} \mid f_{t+\tau})\Big].
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:distro-FA-elemental}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=\columnwidth, center}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=1.6em, row sep=7ex, >={Latex}, thick]
A_t \arrow[r] & f_t \arrow[r] & B_t \\
A_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & f_{t+\tau} \arrow[r] & B_{t+\tau}
%
% ---- cross-row maps (curvatures tuned for the new spacing) ----
\end{tikzcd}
\end{adjustbox}
\caption{Probabilistic Graphical Model associated to the temporal parametrization of diagram~(\ref{d:elemental}).}
\label{fig:PGM-elemental}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Reading the hierarchy bottom-up}
We can now reinterpret the decomposition evolutionarily. Elemental reactions provide transformations without memory. Open hierarchical reactions provide structured dependencies and primitive historical sensitivity. Non-closed memory systems can preserve traces of prior states, but lack autonomy. Autogenic closure introduces self-maintaining constraint, producing a minimal locus of proto-agency. Informed material causes provide a bridge between analog material memory and more robust digital control. Free-standing formal causes introduce syntactic openness, allowing the system to revise the rules by which it explores future possibilities. Finally, explicit sensing-response architecture turns autonomous closure into situated agency by coupling internal anticipation to environmental measurement and control. This hierarchy, summarize in Table~\ref{tab:proto-agency-hierarchy}, clarifies why agency is not identical to any single ingredient. Temporal dependency is not enough, because even elemental reactions unfold in time~\citep{duenas2019chemistry, bartlett2022provenance}. Memory is not enough, because memory can be externally supported~\citep{ehresmann2007memory, wilson2022scaffolding}. Closure is not enough, because a closed organization may lack explicit adaptive coupling~\citep{maturana1980, di2005autopoiesis}. Sensing is not enough, because sensors can be externally imposed devices~\citep{cariani1989design, barandiaran2009defining}. Agency appears only when these features become mutually organized: when a self-maintaining system produces and revises the measurement-control relations through which future possibilities become relevant for its own continuation~\citep{Robbins2012Primer, ball2023life}.
The transition from proto-agency to agency can now be stated more precisely. Proto-agency begins wherever a temporally extended chemical organization preserves dependency structures that bias future transformations in light of its own prior states~\citep{deacon2014transition, deacon2021molecules}. Primitive agency appears when those dependency structures become embedded in organizational closure, so that the system maintains the constraints through which it continues to exist~\citep{mossio2010organisational, moreno2018minimal}. Robust agency appears when this closed organization acquires a revisable measurement-control interface that modulates organism-environment coupling in light of possible futures~\citep{rosen2011anticipatory, fabregas2026organism}. This conclusion prepares the next section. Having derived a hierarchy of weaker temporalized organizations, we can now distinguish autonomy, goal-directedness, agency, and open-endedness without collapsing them into a single vague notion.
%Autonomy corresponds to self-maintaining closure under material openness. Goal-directedness corresponds to viability-biased maintenance. Agency corresponds to endogenous anticipatory modulation of coupling. Open-endedness begins when this anticipatory organization can reconstruct the very space of possibilities within which future action occurs. % closure grounds autonomy; temporalized closure grounds primitive anticipation; situated, revisable measurement-control grounds agency; reconstructive formal openness grounds open-endedness.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\small
\caption{Interpretive hierarchy obtained by weakening the temporally parametrized \((F,A)\)-system.}
\label{tab:proto-agency-hierarchy}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.18\textwidth} p{0.22\textwidth} p{0.28\textwidth} p{0.22\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Level} & \textbf{Diagrammatic form} & \textbf{Formal signature} & \textbf{Agency interpretation} \\
\midrule
Elemental reaction & Diagram~(\ref{d:elemental}) & Time-indexed transformation without cross-time self-reference & No agency; baseline transformation \\
Open hierarchy & Diagrams~(\ref{d:no_closed})--(\ref{d:no_closed_2}) & Structured dependency with history-sensitive constraint & Proto-agential precursor; selection can act on patterns \\
Non-closed memory & Diagram~(\ref{d:component1}) & Hierarchical dependency without closure to efficient causation & Memory-like organization without autonomy \\
Autogenic closure & Diagram~(\ref{d:component2}) & Minimal reciprocal constraint maintenance & Primitive proto-agency \\
Intrinsic formal memory & Diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr_ss}) & Closure supported by informed material causes & Primitive autonomy with limited anticipation \\
Semantic closure & Diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr_full}) & Closure to efficient causation plus formal openness & Autonomous semantic organization \\
Situated semantic closure & Diagram~(\ref{d:hofmeyr-ext}) & Closure plus sensing-response and revisable measurement-control & Robust primitive agency \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{Agency Thresholds}
The focus of the previous section was to derive a hierarchy of temporally parametrized organizations, ranging from elemental chemical transformations to situated semantically closed systems. This hierarchy now allows us to address the central conceptual question of this paper: when does proto-agency become agency? The answer cannot be obtained by adding a single missing component, because agency is not a binary property that appears once and for all~\citep{newman2025agency}. Rather, it is a graded organizational achievement in which closure, viability, anticipation and environmental coupling become increasingly integrated~\citep{sultan2022bridging}. A useful consequence of the preceding derivation is that several notions often collapsed under the label of agency can now be separated. Autonomy, goal-directedness, agency and open-endedness are related, but they are not equivalent. Autonomy concerns the self-maintenance of an organization under material openness. Goal-directedness concerns the biased preservation or attainment of viability-supporting states. Agency appears when goal-directed organization acquires an endogenous anticipatory structure that selectively modulates organism--environment coupling. Open-endedness begins when this anticipatory organization can reconstruct its own future space of possibilities.
\subsection{Autonomy as closure under material openness}
Autonomy is the first threshold because it identifies the point at which a system is no longer merely transformed by external constraints, but participates in producing and maintaining the constraints that make its own continuation possible. In the organizational tradition, this is captured by closure to efficient causation~\citep{rosen1991life} or, equivalently, closure of constraints~\citep{mossio2017makes}. A system is autonomous when the relevant efficient causes of its organization are not merely imposed from the outside, but are regenerated through the very processes they constrain~\citep{Varela1979Principles}. This does not mean that an autonomous system is materially closed. On the contrary, organisms remain thermodynamically open: they exchange matter and energy with their environments and depend on flows they do not produce alone. The distinctive feature of autonomy is therefore not isolation, but the closure of constraint-maintaining relations under conditions of material openness~\citep{montevil2015biological}.
This is why autonomy distinguishes organisms from ordinary dissipative structures. A flame, vortex or B\'enard cell may display spontaneous order, but the constraints that sustain its organization are not themselves produced, repaired and transformed by the organization as a condition of its continued existence~\citep{vasas2010lack}. The hierarchy derived above gives this distinction a formal expression. Elemental reactions and open hierarchical dependencies may unfold in time, preserve traces of prior states, or even participate in selective stabilization. Still, they do not thereby become autonomous. Autonomy begins only when a dependency structure closes on itself in such a way that the system maintains the constraints through which it remains a system~\citep{deacon2014transition}. In this sense, closure is not already agency, but it is the organizational ground without which robust agency cannot evolve.
\subsection{Goal-directedness as viability-biased maintenance}
Goal-directedness introduces a second threshold. A system may be autonomous without yet exhibiting a rich form of agency, but once autonomy is precarious, its continued existence becomes normatively structured~\citep{beer2023theoretical}. Some trajectories preserve the organization, while others lead to breakdown. Goal-directedness can therefore be understood as the tendency of an autonomous organization to maintain, recover or generate viability-supporting conditions~\citep{veloz2021goals}. This conception helps avoid two extremes. On the one hand, goal-directedness should not be reduced to an externally imposed target, as in a machine whose goal is assigned by a designer~\citep{nicholson2013organisms}. On the other hand, it should not be inflated into conscious intention. Minimal biological goal-directedness is neither external programming nor mental purpose, but the organization-dependent bias by which a system compensates perturbations, preserves its viability and maintains the conditions of its own continuation~\citep{heylighen2023meaning}.
The relevant contrast is between merely reaching a goal and becoming of a goal. As highlighted by~\citet{nicholson2013organisms}, in a non-living machine, the goal is usually specified in advance by an external observer. In contrast, in an autonomous organization, the most primitive goal is generated by the organization itself: to become and remain a viable unity. This is why autopoietic and chemical-organization approaches to goal-directedness are relevant here. They do not begin with a pre-given target, but with the emergence of a self-maintaining network whose continued existence defines what counts as success or failure. Nevertheless, goal-directedness is still not agency in the strong sense defended in this paper. As shown by~\citet{rosenblueth1943behavior}, a system may compensate perturbations and return to a viability-supporting attractor without possessing an endogenous anticipatory organization. Furthermore, a system may be robust, adaptive, and self-maintaining, while still acting primarily through restorative dynamics. The transition to agency requires more than the preservation of a viable organization; it requires the internal modulation of possible couplings in light of what has not yet occurred~\citep{jaeger2024naturalizing}.
\subsection{Agency as endogenous anticipatory modulation}
Agency appears when goal-directed organization becomes anticipatory. The crucial point is not that the system predicts in the abstract, since many non-living systems can be described predictively by an observer~\citep{clark2013whatever}. As argued by~\citet{juarrero1999dynamics}, the relevant question is whether present action is modulated by an internally generated, history-dependent structure that the organization itself produces, maintains and revises. Agency therefore begins when the system does not merely restore itself after perturbation, but differentially selects among possible organism--environment couplings in light of possible future consequences. The temporal parametrization developed above gives this claim a formal basis. Once the processes of a closed organization are associated with distinct characteristic time scales, the organization induces a dependency structure in which present variables are conditioned by traces of prior organization and by possible future-oriented constraints. This structure is not an externally imposed controller, but the temporal unfolding of the organization itself. Agency, in this sense, is not added to autonomy from the outside; it is autonomy becoming anticipatory through time~\citep{nave2025drive}.
This also clarifies why ordinary feedback control is insufficient. A cybernetic regulator, such as a thermostat or a conventional machine, can correct deviations from a target state, but its variables, sensors, effectors and success criteria are externally specified. In biological agency, by contrast, the measurement--control architecture is itself part of the organization that must be produced and maintained~\citep{cariani1993evolve, cariani2009strategies}. What is sensed, what is controlled, and what counts as viable are not fixed once and for all. They are historically stabilized and, in stronger forms of agency, revisable~\citep{cariani2011semiotics}. The threshold from goal-directedness to agency can therefore be stated as follows. A system is goal-directed when its organization biases trajectories toward viability-supporting states. A system is agentive when that organization contains an endogenous anticipatory structure that modulates coupling before the relevant future state is fully actualized. This is why the ADBN redescription matters: it does not merely represent a stochastic dynamics, but a temporally structured organization in which prior interactions canalize future possibilities~\citep{juarrero2023context}.
\subsection{Open-endedness as reconstruction of future possibilities}
Open-endedness introduces a fourth threshold. If agency is anticipatory modulation, open-endedness is the capacity of that anticipatory organization to transform its own future space of possibilities. A merely adaptive agent may choose among available actions, update parameters or compensate perturbations within an already established repertoire. An open-ended agent can alter the variables, couplings, interpretive roles or formal constraints through which future relevance is defined. This distinction is essential for avoiding a weak conception of adaptation. Many systems adapt by changing parameters within a fixed state space~\citep{hernandez2018undecidability}. Living systems, by contrast, often alter the effective space in which adaptation occurs: new sensors, new effectors, new codes, new constraints and new organism--environment relations can emerge historically~\citep{cariani1989design}.
In the language developed here, open-endedness requires not only closure to efficient causation and endogenous anticipation, but openness to formal causation: the capacity to transform the rules, descriptions and distinctions by which the system constructs its own future~\citep{ellis2023efficient}. The hierarchy derived in the previous section makes this point explicit. From Table~\ref{tab:proto-agency-hierarchy} we notice that (i) elemental reactions have temporal succession without self-reference, (ii) open hierarchical systems may possess history-sensitive dependencies without autonomy, (iii) autogenic closure introduces primitive self-maintenance, (iv) semantically closed systems introduce internally generated interpretation, and (v) situated semantically closed systems add measurement and control. Thus, open-ended agency emerges only when this situated anticipatory organization can be rewritten without destroying the continuity of the organization itself.
\subsection{A nested taxonomy}
Table~\ref{tab:agency-thresholds} summarizes the proposed taxonomy. Autonomy is closure to efficient causation under material openness. Goal-directedness is viability-biased maintenance of an autonomous organization. Agency is endogenous anticipatory modulation of organism--environment coupling. Open-endedness is the reconstruction of the future space within which such modulation occurs. These notions are nested but not identical: autonomy grounds goal-directedness, goal-directedness prepares agency, and agency becomes open-ended when it can transform its own space of possible relevance. This ordering also clarifies the status of proto-agency. Proto-agential systems are not yet agents in the strong sense, but they possess some of the temporal and organizational precursors of agency~\citep{moreno2018minimal}. A chemical system with memory-like dependencies may preserve traces of prior states without being autonomous~\citep{duenas2019chemistry}. An autogenic system may maintain constraints without possessing explicit sensing-response architecture~\citep{deacon2021molecules}. A semantically closed system may be autonomous without being richly open-ended~\citep{lopez2025closing}. The value of the hierarchy is precisely that it lets us locate these intermediate cases without forcing them into a binary classification.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\small
\caption{Proposed thresholds distinguishing autonomy, goal-directedness, agency and open-endedness.}
\label{tab:agency-thresholds}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.18\textwidth} p{0.28\textwidth} p{0.28\textwidth} p{0.18\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Threshold} & \textbf{Organizational condition} & \textbf{Formal signature} & \textbf{Failure mode} \\
\midrule
Autonomy & The system produces and maintains the constraints required for its own continuation under material openness. & Closure to efficient causation / closure of constraints. & Dissipative order without self-maintained constraints. \\
Goal-directedness & The organization biases trajectories toward viability-supporting states or processes. & Viability-selective compensation and persistence across perturbations. & External goal assignment or mere relaxation to equilibrium. \\
Agency & The system modulates coupling through an endogenous anticipatory structure. & History-dependent ADBN with internally maintained measurement--control dependencies. & Fixed feedback regulation within externally specified variables. \\
Open-endedness & The anticipatory organization can reconstruct its own space of possible relevance. & Rewritable variables, couplings, constraints, formal causes or interpretive roles. & Parameter adaptation inside a fixed state space. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
Moreover, this taxonomy is intended to answer a central objection to biological agency: if agency cannot be distinguished from ordinary mechanism, predictive regulation or self-stabilization, then it risks becoming an empty label~\citep{difrisco2025biological}. The present framework avoids that problem by specifying what agency adds. It does not add an immaterial force, a hidden vital principle, or an observer-dependent metaphor. It adds an organizational condition: the self-produced measurement--control architecture through which the system selects, revises and acts upon relevant variables. Mechanistic explanation remains necessary. The molecular, physiological, and dynamical details still matter, because without them there is no concrete system to analyze. Yet, ordinary mechanism and explanation are insufficient when treating the relevant parts, variables, and transition rules as externally fixed~\citep{juarrero1999dynamics}.
As we will further discuss in the next section, biological agency requires a broader mechanistic picture in which the mechanisms that explain local transformations are themselves embedded in an organization that produces and revises the constraints making those transformations functional for the system~\citep{sultan2022bridging, bich2022organization}. This is the sense in which the present account is neo-mechanistic rather than anti-mechanistic. It does not reject mechanisms; it expands the explanatory target. The question is no longer only how a system moves through a predefined space of possibilities, but how a living organization helps construct, constrain and revise that space~\citep{jaeger2024naturalizing, bourrat2026agency}. This provides a principled way to distinguish genuine biological agency from mere predictive regulation, while remaining continuous with experimental biology.
The thresholds proposed here are conceptual so far, but are not intended to remain merely verbal. If autonomy, goal-directedness, agency, and open-endedness are real organizational distinctions, then they should leave empirical signatures. We should be able to ask whether a system maintains its own constraints, whether perturbation compensation is viability-selective, whether present action depends on internally generated future-oriented structure, and whether the system can revise the variables and couplings through which the environment becomes relevant. The next section turns this taxonomy into an operational research program. The goal is not to claim that all relevant measurements already exist, but to specify what a falsifiable theory of biological agency would require. In particular, we further discuss in which way our theory is neo-mechanistic and propose a first metric suite for detecting semantic closure, measurement--control complementarity, anticipatory modulation, affordance reconstruction, syntactic open-endedness, and viability-corrected skill acquisition.
\section{An Operational Theory of Biological Agency}
The previous section distinguished autonomy, goal-directedness, agency, and open-endedness as nested but non-equivalent thresholds, pointing out to a unification of multiple perspectives in the literature. Still, a conceptual taxonomy is definitely not enough. As well-criticized by~\citet{difrisco2025biological}, if agency is to become a useful concept for experimental biology, rather than a metaphor for complex behavior, then the proposed thresholds must be translated into operational criteria that biologists can measure in their labs. The central question is therefore not only what agency is, but how one could detect, compare, perturb, and falsify claims about agency in concrete biological or synthetic systems~\citep{walsh2018towards}. This section develops a first step toward such an operational theory. We do not claim that the metrics introduced below already constitute a complete experimental program. Rather, they should be understood as operational handles: candidate quantities designed to turn the preceding formal hierarchy into testable contrasts. Our aim is to specify what should be measured if agency is grounded in self-produced constraints, measurement--control complementarity, endogenous anticipation, and the reconstruction of future possibilities.
\subsection{Organizational closure and falsifiability}
The main difficulty in operationalizing organizational closure is that such a property is not a directly visible material component. It is not a substance, but a relation among processes, constraints, and levels of description~\citep{jaeger2023fourth}. A molecule, membrane, enzyme, receptor, or signaling pathway is not a constraint merely by existing. It becomes a constraint relative to a process it canalizes, a time scale over which it is maintained, and an organization for which its contribution matters. Thus, saying that a system is closed to efficient causation is not to list all its molecular parts, but to identify whether the relevant efficient causes of the organization are produced and maintained within that organization~\citep{hofmeyr2021biochemically}. This immediately raises a methodological problem. In experimental practice, one never models every process occurring in a living system. One selects observables, background conditions, time scales, variables, and mechanisms according to the phenomenon under investigation. Organizational closure must therefore be operationalized perspectivally without becoming arbitrary~\citep{weckstrom2023natural}. The relevant question is not whether every microphysical detail participates in closure, but whether the mechanisms required to explain the target phenomenon are themselves enabled, repaired, or transformed by the organization whose behavior is being explained.
A first operational strategy is therefore to reconstruct a process-enablement graph. Let the vertices represent experimentally identifiable processes or constraints, and let directed edges represent enablement relations, such that process \(p_i\) enables, maintains, repairs, or modulates process \(p_j\). A system exhibits organizational closure, relative to a chosen relevant description, when the enabling relations among its relevant processes form a closed dependency structure rather than a chain terminating in externally imposed constraints~\citep{brown2025studying}. Notice that this does not eliminate the need for mechanistic detail; it gives those details an organizational role. Furthermore, this reconstruction must be supplemented by intervention. A proposed closure relation is falsified, or at least weakened, (i) when disrupting a candidate constraint has no systematic effect on the organization it was supposed to enable, (ii) when the system cannot regenerate the constraint under conditions in which closure predicts regeneration, or (iii) when the allegedly internal constraint is shown to be externally supplied. Conversely, closure is supported (a) when perturbing a candidate constraint disrupts viability-relevant organization, and (b) when the system restores, replaces, or reroutes that constraint through internally maintained processes.
Once again, this strategy does not reject mechanistic explanation. On the contrary, it requires mechanisms. The point is that ordinary mechanistic explanation is incomplete when it treats parts, variables, boundaries, and transition rules as fixed from the outside~\citep{bich2021mechanism}. Mechanisms, in any of their conventional senses, explain how a phenomenon is produced once the relevant organization is in place~\citep{ruse2005darwinism, nicholson2012concept}. The agency problem asks how the system produces, maintains, and revises the organization that makes those mechanisms relevant for its own continued existence~\citep{gambarotto2023teleology}. We will call this broader explanatory target a \emph{neo-mechanism}. Neo-mechanisms are not mysterious forces added to ordinary mechanisms, but mechanisms whose relevant constraints are produced, maintained, and sometimes transformed by the dynamics they constrain~\citep{bechtel2023organisms}. Local mechanisms still explain local production. Organizational closure explains why those productions count as constraints for the system itself. In this sense, a neo-mechanistic theory of agency does not move beyond mechanism, but expands what mechanism must include as \emph{explanans} when the \emph{explanandum} is a living organization~\citep{dupre2013mechanism}.
This also clarifies the relation between state-space approaches and the present framework. State-space descriptions remain useful whenever the relevant variables, transition rules, and boundaries can be treated as fixed over the time scale of interest. Biological agency becomes visible precisely when this assumption fails, when the system changes which variables matter, which couplings are relevant, which constraints are maintained, and which future states remain viable~\citep{spencer2026agency}. The operational task is therefore to detect when a system is not merely moving through a predefined space of possibilities, but participating in the construction and revision of that space. The metrics proposed below presuppose a common experimental template. First, identify a target organization \(O\), a set of environmental variables \(E_t\), internal variables \(I_t\), sensor-like variables \(S_t\), effector-like variables \(A_t\), and viability variables \(V_t\). Second, expose the system to perturbations that are not merely noise around a familiar condition, but challenges that force the system either to restore, reroute, or reconstruct its measurement--control organization. Third, infer a time-lagged dependency structure (e.g., an ADBN), denoted here as \(\mathcal{G}_t\), using causal, probabilistic, or intervention-based methods appropriate to the system.
Importantly, the resulting graph should not be treated as the organism itself. It is an experimentally inferred redescription of how selected variables depend on one another across time. What matters is whether the graph remains fixed, merely changes parameter values, or reorganizes its topology, variables, and effective sensor--effector relations while viability is preserved. Based on the hierarchy derived in the last section, a standard predictive regulator should mainly show parameter adjustment within a stable dependency structure. An endogenously anticipatory system should show graph-level reorganization: new sensor--effector relevance, new internally maintained constraints, and new viable trajectories. This template yields a basic falsifiable contrast. If a system only tunes parameters inside a fixed externally specified graph, then it should not be classified as strongly agentive under the present theory. If, however, perturbation induces reorganization of the measurement--control graph while viability is maintained, then the system exhibits evidence of endogenous anticipation. The stronger case occurs when disrupting the internal anticipatory organization impairs adaptive action more than disrupting an externally imposed stimulus--response mapping.
\subsection{Semantic Closure Index}
The first proposed metric is the Semantic Closure Index (SCI). Its purpose is to estimate the degree to which a system constructs or maintains its own \emph{interpreters}. In the language of physical biosemiotics, an interpreter is a constraint that connects symbolic or signal-like structures to functional consequences~\citep{pattee2013epistemic}. In the language of relational biology, it is an efficient cause whose production is entailed by the organization itself~\citep{hofmeyr2018causation}. The SCI therefore asks whether measurement--control relations are internally produced or externally imposed. Let \(\mathcal{I}_O\) be the set of candidate interpreters required for the organization \(O\) to maintain viability-relevant measurement--control relations. Let \(P(i)\) denote the set of processes that produce or maintain interpreter \(i\), and let \(W(i)\) denote a weight proportional to the viability-relevance of \(i\), estimated by perturbation, causal influence, or loss of predictive performance. A first approximation of SCI is
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{SCI}(O) = \frac{ \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}_O} W(i)\,\chi_{\mathrm{internal}}(P(i))\,\chi_{\mathrm{functional}}(i) }{ \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}_O} W(i) }. \label{eq:SCI}
\end{equation}
In eq.~(\ref{eq:SCI}), \(\chi_{\mathrm{internal}}(P(i))=1\) when the processes maintaining \(i\) are internal to the organization under study, and \(\chi_{\mathrm{functional}}(i)=1\) when perturbing \(i\) disrupts the relevant measurement--control relation. Otherwise, \(\chi_{\mathrm{internal}}(P(i))=0\) and \(\chi_{\mathrm{functional}}(i)=0\). The SCI is close to existing attempts to quantify organizational closure, such as~\citet{klyubin2008keep}, but it is narrower; it focuses specifically on closure of interpreters, not merely on cyclic dependence among processes.
\subsection{Measurement--Control Complementarity}
The second metric is Measurement--Control Complementarity (MCC). Its purpose is to estimate whether sensing and action are mutually embedded in viability-maintaining loops, rather than functioning as separable input--output channels. This distinction is crucial because ordinary machines can possess sensors and effectors without being semantically closed~\citep{cariani1998towards}. Biological systems, by contrast, often produce the very architectures through which measurement becomes action and action reshapes future measurement~\citep{cariani2009strategies}. Let \(S_t\) denote sensor-like variables, \(A_t\) effector-like variables, \(I_t\) internal organizational variables, and \(V_t\) viability variables. As suggested by~\citet{salge2017empowerment}, a first approximation to MCC can be defined as the degree to which sensing improves the prediction of future action and action improves the prediction of future sensing, conditional on internal organization and viability:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{MCC} = \frac{1}{2} \left[ I(S_t;A_{t+\Delta}\mid I_t,V_t) + I(A_t;S_{t+\Delta}\mid I_t,V_t) \right]. \label{eq:MCC}
\end{equation}
In eq.~(\ref{eq:MCC}), $I$ stands for the conditional mutual information. The overall quantity represents the average intrinsic value or information gain of a system. However, this quantity should not be interpreted as sufficient for agency. High measurement--control complementarity could occur in engineered control systems~\citep{salge2017empowerment}. What matters is whether the loop is also internally maintained, viability-relevant, and plastic under perturbation. MCC therefore becomes informative only when paired with the SCI and the Anticipatory Modulation Index.
\subsection{Anticipatory Modulation Index}
The Anticipatory Modulation Index (AMI) measures whether present action depends on internally generated future-oriented structure above and beyond current stimuli, past state, and externally imposed feedback. Its purpose is to distinguish ordinary predictive regulation from endogenous anticipation. A regulator may predict future states using a fixed model supplied by a designer. An agentive system, in the stronger biological sense, produces and revises the internal organization that makes such future-oriented modulation possible. This magnitude was inspired by (and can be conceived as an operationalization of)~\citet{levin2019computational}'s \emph{cognitive light cone}. Let \(M_t\) denote internal variables that encode or approximate future viability-relevant possibilities, whether directly observed or inferred as latent variables in the ADBN. Let \(A_t\) be current action or effector state, \(S_t\) current sensory state, \(E_t\) environmental state, and \(H_t\) the relevant history of prior states. A first approximation of AMI is
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{AMI} = \mathcal{L}(A_t \mid S_t,E_t,H_t,V_t) - \mathcal{L}(A_t \mid S_t,E_t,H_t,V_t,M_t), \label{eq:AMI}
\end{equation}
where \(\mathcal{L}\) is a suitable prediction loss function (e.g., Kullback-Leibler Divergence) that must be chosen based on the experimenter's objectives. According to eq.~(\ref{eq:AMI}), the interventionist test is stronger than the correlational one: perturbing \(M_t\) should selectively impair adaptive action under novel conditions, especially when current stimuli alone are insufficient to explain the behavior.
\subsection{Affordance Reconstruction Rate}
The Affordance Reconstruction Rate (ARR) estimates whether the system creates new relevant possibilities rather than merely choosing among predefined options. An affordance, in the present framework, is not simply an environmental opportunity, nor merely an internal representation. It is a relational possibility for action generated by the coupling between organism and environment~\citep{hirota2024reality}. Thus, affordance reconstruction occurs when the system changes the variables, boundaries, sensor--effector relations, or constraints through which the environment matters to it~\citep{kauffman2021world}. Let \(\mathcal{G}^{MC}_t\) be the inferred measurement--control graph at time \(t\), restricted to variables that participate in viable organism--environment coupling. Let \(d(\mathcal{G}^{MC}_{t+\Delta},\mathcal{G}^{MC}_t)\) be an appropriate graph distance measuring changes in nodes, edges, causal directions, or functional roles. A first approximation of ARR is
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{ARR} = \frac{ d(\mathcal{G}^{MC}_{t+\Delta},\mathcal{G}^{MC}_t) }{ \Delta t } \cdot \overline{V}_{t:t+\Delta}. \label{eq:ARR}
\end{equation}
In eq.~(\ref{eq:ARR}), the viability term $\overline{V}_{t:t+\Delta}$ is essential. Without it, random breakdown, noise, or pathological instability could be mistaken for affordance reconstruction. ARR should increase only when graph-level reorganization expands or preserves viable possibilities. This metric is therefore meant to distinguish genuine open-ended relevance construction from mere behavioral variability.
\subsection{Syntactic Open-endedness}
The fifth metric, Syntactic Open-endedness (SO), has already been developed and tested elsewhere~\citep{lopez2026characterizing}. Its role in the present framework is to capture whether the effective state space, rule space, context space, or phenotypic space of a system expands over time. A fixed dynamical system may generate many trajectories, but it remains bounded by a predefined space of possibilities. Strong open-endedness requires the system to alter the effective rules by which future states become reachable. In the present paper, SO should be interpreted as a measure of formal openness. It does not replace semantic closure or anticipatory modulation. Rather, it asks whether the system can expand the syntactic repertoire through which future organization is explored. When combined with SCI, MCC, AMI, and ARR, SO helps distinguish systems that are merely adaptive within a fixed space from systems that transform the space in which adaptation occurs.
\subsection{Viability-Corrected Skill Acquisition}
The final metric is Viability-Corrected Skill Acquisition (VCSA). Its purpose is to extend~\citet{chollet2019measure}'s skill-acquisition efficiency beyond predefined artificial tasks. In standard AI evaluation, a system can acquire skill over a fixed benchmark without constructing the task space, preserving its own viability, or revising its own measurement--control architecture. Biological intelligence, however, requires a broader measure that quantifies how efficiently a system acquires new competencies while maintaining the conditions of its own continued existence~\citep{pezzulo2026bootstrapping}. Let \(\Delta K\) denote improvement in competence over a family of tasks or affordance relations, \(C_{\mathrm{data}}\) the informational or experiential cost, \(C_{\mathrm{energy}}\) the energetic cost, \(C_{\mathrm{dev}}\) the developmental or structural cost, and \(\overline{V}\) the mean viability preserved during acquisition. A first approximation of VCSA is
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{VCSA} = \overline{V} \cdot \frac{ \Delta K }{ C_{\mathrm{data}} + C_{\mathrm{energy}} + C_{\mathrm{dev}} + C_{\mathrm{time}} }. \label{eq:VCSA}
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{eq:VCSA}) preserves the spirit of Chollet's skill-acquisition efficiency while adding the biological dimensions absent from it~\citep[p. 41--42]{chollet2019measure}. A system that learns rapidly by destroying its own viability should not count as biologically intelligent in the relevant sense. Conversely, a system that acquires modest skill while preserving and reconstructing its own measurement--control organization may be more biologically agentive than a high-performing but externally specified machine~\citep{jaeger2023artificial}.
\subsection{How the metrics work together?}
None of these metrics is sufficient on its own. A system may have high MCC without semantic closure, high AMI without self-produced interpreters, high ARR because it is unstable, or high VCSA within a fully externally defined task space. The metrics become meaningful only as a profile. Autonomy is primarily associated with SCI; goal-directedness with viability-selective compensation; agency with the joint presence of SCI, MCC and AMI; open-endedness with ARR and SO; intelligence with viability-corrected skill acquisition across changing affordance spaces. This metric suite therefore turns the taxonomy of the previous section into an empirical research program. It predicts that ordinary machines, standard predictive regulators, biological cells, synthetic living machines, biohybrid systems, and multicellular collectives should occupy different regions of metric space, as constantly suggested by~\citet{sole2019liquid, sole2022evolution, sole2026cognition}. A conventional machine may score high in task skill but low in semantic closure. A self-maintaining cell may score high in closure and viability maintenance but lower in affordance reconstruction. A morphogenetic collective may score high in reconstruction if it can reorganize its measurement--control relations under perturbation while preserving viability.
Furthermore, along with these metrics, the proposed theory is falsifiable in several ways. First, if systems classified as strongly agentive show only parameter tuning within fixed measurement--control graphs, then the claim of endogenous anticipation is weakened. Second, if perturbing the internal anticipatory structure has no specific effect on adaptive action beyond what is explained by external feedback, then the AMI interpretation fails. Third, if candidate interpreters are not internally produced or maintained, then semantic closure has not been demonstrated. Fourth, if apparent affordance reconstruction does not preserve viability, then it should be interpreted as instability rather than open-ended agency. These criteria also prevent inflationary use of agency language. As suggested by~\citet{mitchell2023debate}, a system does not become an agent merely because it is complex, adaptive, predictive, or difficult to model. It becomes agentive to the extent that it produces and revises the measurement--control organization through which it maintains viability and modulates its coupling to possible futures. The purpose of the proposed metric suite is therefore not to assign a single agency score, but to identify the organizational dimensions along which agency can emerge, fail, or become open-ended.
Thus, the operational program developed here remains preliminary. Its value lies in specifying what must be measured if the preceding theory is correct. Before clarifying the status of Markov blankets and active inference, however, it is useful to ask how these operational handles behave in concrete domains where ordinary distinctions between machines, organisms, cells, collectives, and nervous systems become unstable. The next section therefore treats the metric suite not as a finished experimental apparatus, but as a set of proof-of-concept lenses for comparing artificial chemical self-reproduction, unicellular coordination, synthetic living machines, multicellular agency, and neural organization.
\section{Proof of Concept}
Once again, the metric suite introduced above should not be interpreted as an absolute benchmark for biological agency. Its function at this stage is more modest and more useful. It provides a way to ask what would count as evidence for the thresholds previously derived. A proof of concept, in this context, is not a decisive experimental verification of the theory, but a test of discriminative power. If the proposed framework is useful, it should allow us to distinguish systems that merely self-organize, systems that self-maintain, systems that reproduce, systems that regulate, systems that reconstruct their organism--environment couplings, and systems whose future possibilities become open-ended. This section considers several domains where such distinctions become experimentally meaningful. The cases are deliberately heterogeneous: abiotic self-reproducing vesicles, \emph{Physarum polycephalum}, biobots, multicellular collectives, and nervous systems. These are not offered as instances of the same kind of agency. On the contrary, their importance lies in the fact that they should occupy different regions of the metric space we described in the last section. The goal is therefore not to call all of them agents, but to show how a formal, graded, biologically grounded theory of agency can avoid both inflationary agency talk and reductive dismissal.
\subsection{Abiotic self-reproduction and the lower bound of organization}
A first proof-of-concept domain is provided by fully abiotic systems capable of growth, reorganization, and self-reproduction. Recent work by~\citet{katla2025self} describes polymeric vesicles generated through photo-induced polymerization-induced self-assembly, where feedback between polymerization, degradation, chemiosmotic gradients, and vesicle growth yields a self-reproducing population of synthetic compartments. These systems are especially important for the present theory because they occupy a liminal zone between ordinary chemical self-organization and biological reproduction. They are not cells, they do not possess genuine semantic closure, and they should not be described as full agents. Yet, they exhibit a kind of autonomous material reorganization that is richer than a passive dissipative structure.
In terms developed in the previous section, these vesicles are useful because they force us to separate self-reproduction from agency. As demonstrated by~\citet{katla2025self}, a vesicle population may show persistence, multiplication, and even heritable variation without thereby possessing endogenous anticipatory modulation. SCI should remain low unless the system constructs or maintains interpreters that mediate measurement--control relations, such as those developed by~\citet{soria2026primitive}. MCC may be nonzero if internal gradients and boundary dynamics reciprocally affect future material organization. AMI, however, should remain weak unless present reorganization is demonstrably biased by internally generated variables that approximate future viability~\citep{egbert2023behaviour}. Such systems therefore help establish the lower bound of the hierarchy: organized reproduction and primitive viability are not yet agency, but they may provide the material substrate from which agency-relevant measurement--control relations can later evolve.
This case also clarifies why the framework does not reduce agency to self-replication. In~\citet{lopez2025closing}, self-replication marked a crucial threshold in the origin of open-ended evolution because it introduced a self-referential loop capable of preserving and varying organization through time~\citep{pattee2012evolving}. Nevertheless, the present theory requires a stronger threshold for agency: the organization must not only reproduce or persist, but modulate its coupling to the environment through internally maintained anticipatory structure~\citep{machatzke2026dna}. Abiotic vesicles therefore function as a negative-control-like case. They show how far self-organizing chemistry can go, while also clarifying what must be added before agency language becomes justified.
\subsection{Unicellular coordination without a nervous system}
A second proof-of-concept domain is provided by unicellular organisms that coordinate behavior without a nervous system. \emph{Physarum polycephalum} is particularly useful because its adaptive behavior depends on the coupling of physical, biochemical, and mechanical processes distributed across a single cell~\citep{beekman2015brainless}. Recent work by~\citet{gyllingberg2026self} suggests that self-sustained calcium oscillations, diffusion, and mechanics can explain diverse behaviors by linking local perturbations to large-scale coordination. This case is valuable because it challenges any account of agency that requires centralized control, nervous representation, or explicit symbolic cognition, such as~\citet{david2008sense} or~\citet{arnellos2015multicellular}.
In the present framework, \emph{Physarum} should be analyzed as a system in which measurement and control are distributed across a deformable, materially continuous body. The relevant question is not whether \emph{Physarum} “has a mind”, but whether its internal oscillatory organization modulates future action in ways that preserve viability under changing environmental conditions~\citep{reid2023thoughts}. MCC should be particularly informative here, because sensing and action are not easily decomposed into separate channels. The same mechanochemical processes that register perturbations also participate in movement, growth, and reorganization. In this sense, \emph{Physarum} is a natural test case for whether measurement--control relations can be inferred without presupposing a nervous input--output architecture.
Of course, MCC should be complemented by metrics such as AMI and ARR. AMI would ask whether present motion or morphological reorganization is better predicted by internal oscillatory states than by current external stimuli alone. ARR would ask whether the organism merely follows predefined attractors or whether it reconstructs the relevant field of possible actions by changing its morphology, internal transport, and boundary relations. A strong result would show that perturbing calcium dynamics or mechanical feedback selectively disrupts adaptive action, even when environmental gradients remain available~\citep{alim2017mechanism}. In this way, \emph{Physarum} can help bridge the gap between minimal material self-organization and genuine biological agency.
\subsection{Xenobots and the machine--organism boundary}
A third proof-of-concept domain is provided by \emph{xenobots} and other related synthetic biobots, such as those recently introduced by~\citet{gumuskaya2025morphological}. Xenobots are built from living cells, but they are not programmed in the same sense as conventional robots. Their behavior emerges from the self-organization of cellular components, bioelectric and mechanical coordination, and the developmental capacities of the living substrate~\citep{levin2019computational, blackiston2021cellular, seifert2023reinforcement}. This makes them theoretically valuable not because they settle the question of agency, but because they destabilize the inherited distinction between organism and machine~\citep{barwich2024rage}.
A conventional machine has externally specified sensors, effectors, task spaces, and success criteria. Even when it learns, it normally learns within a space of variables and goals established by designers~\citep{cariani1989design}. A biobot is different if the relevant measurement--control architecture is partly generated, maintained, or reorganized by the biological material itself~\citep{cariani2009strategies}. Xenobots therefore invite a more careful vocabulary. They should not simply be called organisms, robots, or agents. They are better treated as candidate \emph{neomachines}: synthetically constructed systems whose agency-relevant properties depend on self-organizing measurement--control relations rather than on fixed syntactic programming alone.
The metrics introduced in the last section provide a way to make this distinction precise. A xenobot may have high task performance while still scoring low on semantic closure if its relevant sensor--effector architecture is externally imposed. It may show goal-directedness if it preserves a stable collective morphology or behavioral attractor under perturbation~\citep{kriegman2020scalable}. It becomes more agentive only if present action depends on internally maintained anticipatory organization, and more open-ended only if it can reconstruct its own field of relevant affordances. This is why xenobots should be treated as stress tests for the framework rather than as decisive evidence for it. They force us to ask which parts of their organization are engineered, which are self-produced, and which are transformed by the system's own activity.
This also clarifies the status of “programming” in biological substrates. In ordinary computation, programming consists in specifying syntactic operations over a predefined set of states. In biological organization, by contrast, interventions may modulate bioelectric, mechanical, or developmental conditions that bias the system toward some attractor without fully specifying the trajectory by which that attractor is reached. Such interventions are not irrelevant to agency, but neither do they exhaust it~\citep{barwich2024rage}. The key operational question is whether the biological collective can repair, reroute, or reconstruct the measurement--control relations through which the intervention becomes meaningful~\citep{cariani1993evolve}.
\subsection{From multicellular agency to ecologies of relational systems}
The transition to multicellularity adds a further complication. Organizational accounts have usually been developed with unicellular organisms in mind, where autonomy and agency are tightly coupled~\citep{mossio2017makes}. However, multicellular systems show forms of coordination, plasticity, and collective behavior that do not always satisfy the strict requirements of single-organism closure~\citep{bich2019understanding}.~\citet{arnellos2015multicellular} argue that multicellular agency requires a constitutive--interactive closure mediated by a regulatory center, but~\citet{newman2025agency} suggest that such criteria may exclude many systems that display plausible forms of multicellular agency, including placozoans, slugs, and biobots. This tension is exactly where a graded metric space becomes useful.
The present framework can accommodate this disagreement by refusing to treat agency as all-or-nothing. A multicellular collective may be weakly autonomous at the level of the whole while strongly agentive in some interactional dimension, or strongly autonomous in developmental organization while weakly anticipatory in behavior~\citep{fulda2023agential}. The question is not whether the collective satisfies a single binary definition, but how closure, viability maintenance, anticipatory modulation, and affordance reconstruction are distributed across levels, scaling from individuals to collectives. Some collectives may inherit measurement--control relations from their constituent cells; others may generate genuinely new collective measurement--control relations not reducible to any cell taken alone.
This suggests a future relational program for multicellularity. Once a taxonomy of semantically closed or partially closed systems has been developed (e.g.,~\citep[Fig. 4]{hofmeyr2021biochemically}), one can ask what happens when two or more such systems occupy the same environment~\citep[p. 25]{cornish2020contrasting}. The coupling of relational entities may produce ecologies of agency in which each system modifies the affordance space of the others~\citep{cardenas2018rosennean}. At the multicellular scale, this may take the form of developmental fields, morphogenetic coordination, bioelectric patterning, or tissue-level constraints that reorganize what individual cells can do. The task is not to force multicellularity into a single-cell diagram, but to identify which diagrams become coupled, nested, or transformed when agency-relevant closure appears across scales~\citep[p. 13]{hofmeyr2021biochemically}. Additionally to the metrics proposed here, when dealing with multicellular organizations, other relevant quantities such as~\citet{poledna2026towards}'s Distributed Integration or~\citet{krakauer2020information}'s individuality measures must be taken into account. Multicellular systems are therefore not merely illustrative examples; they are a domain in which the theory must show whether it can discriminate degrees and kinds of agency better than ordinary feedback language alone.
\subsection{Neural agency and the semiotics of the brain}
\citet{cariani2001symbols}'s application of Pattee's symbol--matter complementarity principle to brain dynamics makes possible to extend the present framework, cautiously, to nervous systems. Neural spikes can be interpreted as discrete functional switching states, while membrane potentials, fields, and network dynamics provide the rate-dependent physical substrate in which those switching states are embedded~\citep{cariani2001symbols}. In this view, the brain is not merely a dynamical system and not merely a computational device, but a self-maintaining semiotic organization in which symbols and dynamics continually constrain one another~\citep{pinotsis2025ephaptic}. This interpretation, however, should be updated in light of contemporary neuroscience.
Recent discussions of causation in neuroscience emphasize that brain explanation cannot be reduced to correlation~\citep{ross2024causation}, nor even to a single narrow notion of mechanism~\citep{potter2025beyond}. Lesions, stimulation, neuroimaging, electrophysiology, development, plasticity, and organism-level behavior all reveal different aspects of causal organization~\citep{siddiqi2022causal}. This pluralism is compatible with the present framework, because relational agency is not expected to appear at one privileged level~\citep{noble2012theory, noble2019biological}. Instead, it should appear in the way measurement--control loops are stabilized, revised, and coupled across neural, bodily, and environmental scales~\citep{ball2023distinguishes}.
The brain therefore offers a demanding test of the presented theory. If neural agency is reduced to fixed computation, we lose the self-maintaining, developmental, and embodied dynamics that make neural processes biologically meaningful~\citep{cariani1999temporal, cariani2001temporal}. If it is reduced to undifferentiated dynamical holism, we lose the functional specificity of symbolic switching, memory, and control~\citep{craver2007explaining}. A relational theory of agency should instead ask which neural processes function as interpreters, which constraints are maintained by the organism, how internal anticipatory variables modulate action, and how neural systems reconstruct affordance spaces through learning, development, and plasticity.
It is very important to emphazise that this does not imply that the same closed diagram used for a self-manufacturing cell should be imposed unchanged on the brain or any other multicellular structure. Different scales may require different relational architectures~\citep[p. 13]{hofmeyr2021biochemically}. A cell, a tissue, a nervous system, and a social organism may realize different forms of closure and different modes of anticipatory organization. What unifies them is not a single diagram, but a common explanatory demand: to understand how material systems produce, maintain, and revise the constraints through which their future possibilities become meaningful~\citep[p. 27]{pattee2013epistemic}. Similarly to what we did with here with extended $(F, A)$-systems, we can derive the temporal parametrizations and joint distributions for weak versions of any relational model, glimpsing the emergence of internal models that guide adaptive action not just in Rosen's original $(M, R)$-systems, but across the entire zoo of potential systems closed to efficient causation~\citep[Fig. 4]{hofmeyr2021biochemically}.
\subsection{Some empirical expectations}
The proposed cases discussed above can be summarized as a set of expected metric profiles. Abiotic self-reproducing vesicles should display material self-organization and perhaps weak viability-like persistence, but low semantic closure and weak anticipatory modulation. Unicelular organisms, such as \emph{Physarum}, should display stronger measurement--control complementarity and possibly nontrivial anticipatory modulation through distributed mechanochemical organization. Xenobots and other biobots should test whether biological collectives can reconstruct sensor--effector relevance under perturbation. Furthermore, multicellular collectives should test whether agency can be distributed across levels without requiring a centralized nervous system. Similarly, neural systems should test whether symbolic switching, embodied dynamics, and organism-level viability can be integrated into a single causal account. Some of the empirical expectations are shown in Table~\ref{tab:proof-of-concept}.
\begin{table*}[t] \centering \begin{adjustbox}{max width=\textwidth} \begin{tabular}{p{3.1cm}p{3.8cm}p{4.1cm}p{4.4cm}} \toprule \textbf{System} & \textbf{Expected organizational status} & \textbf{Most informative metrics} & \textbf{Main experimental question} \\ \midrule Abiotic self-reproducing vesicles & Self-organization and reproduction without full semantic closure & SCI, MCC, SO & Are interpreters internally produced, or is reproduction still driven mainly by externally imposed chemistry? \\ \emph{Physarum polycephalum} & Unicellular distributed coordination without nervous control & MCC, AMI, ARR & Do internal oscillatory variables modulate future action beyond current stimuli? \\ Xenobots / synthetic living machines & Constructed biological collectives at the organism--machine boundary & SCI, AMI, ARR, VCSA & Can the collective repair or reconstruct measurement--control relations under novel perturbations? \\ Multicellular collectives & Coupled relational systems with distributed agency across scales & SCI, ARR, SO & Does agency emerge at the collective level, or only from constituent cells? \\ Neural systems & Multiscale semiotic organization linking switching states and dynamics & MCC, AMI, VCSA & How do neural symbols, bodily dynamics, and viability constraints co-produce action? \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular} \end{adjustbox} \caption{Proof-of-concept domains for the proposed metric suite. The expected profiles are not intended as final classifications, but as hypotheses about how different systems should occupy different regions of the agency metric space.} \label{tab:proof-of-concept} \end{table*}
Table~\ref{tab:proof-of-concept} is not meant to settle the empirical questions in advance. Its purpose is to make the framework testable. If abiotic vesicles score as strongly agentive under these metrics, then the metrics are too permissive. If biological collectives capable of robust reorganization score no differently from fixed regulators, then the metrics are too weak. If neural systems cannot be distinguished from arbitrary dynamical networks, then the framework has failed to preserve the functional specificity of measurement and control. In each case, the theory becomes stronger precisely by exposing itself to possible failure. The proof-of-concept cases considered here show how the operational theory can be applied without overextending it. Abiotic vesicles, \emph{Physarum}, xenobots, multicellular collectives, and neural systems are not placed on a single ladder of increasing intelligence. They are different domains in which closure, viability, anticipation, affordance reconstruction, and semantic plasticity may dissociate. This is why the framework should be understood as a graded organizational theory rather than a universal attribution of agency to all adaptive systems.
Furthermore, the cases above point toward a broader concept, labeled here as \emph{neomachines}. A neomachine is not simply a machine made from biological parts, nor a robot with adaptive control. It is a constructed or constructible system whose relevant measurement--control organization is partly self-produced, historically revisable, and viability-sensitive. Such systems may be fully biological, hybrid, chemical, cellular, or eventually artificial. What distinguishes them from conventional machines is not complexity alone, but the degree to which they can generate, maintain, and transform the semantic relations through which their actions matter. Such a transition from our current notion of the machine to neomachines should be conceived as the shift from clocks to engines in the 19th century, or from engines to computers in the 20th century.
This notion also clarifies what current artificial systems lack. A contemporary AI system may acquire impressive skill over symbolic or statistical task spaces while lacking semantic closure, intrinsic viability, and self-produced interpreters. It may adjust parameters, discover correlations, or optimize policies without constructing the organism--environment relation in which success becomes meaningful for itself. The point is not that artificial systems can never become more life-like. The point is that doing so would require architectures that incorporate measurement, control, self-maintenance, and the capacity to revise their own semantic primitives~\citep{cariani1989design,cariani1998towards, cariani2009strategies}.
Our neomachine concept therefore turns the present theory into a design constraint. To build life-like agency, one should not merely add more computation to a passive substrate. One must construct systems in which the substrate participates in the production and repair of the constraints that guide computation. This requires stochasticity, material turnover, measurement--control complementarity, and the possibility of reorganizing sensor--effector relations under perturbation~\citep{cariani1993evolve}. In this sense, neomachines are not just technological artifacts; they are experimental tests of whether the organizational principles identified here can be physically realized.
Having clarified the experimental scope of the theory, we can now return to the formal language that has appeared throughout the paper. ADBNs, Markov blankets, and active inference are useful only if their status is carefully restricted~\citep{di2022laying}. They do not provide the ontological foundation of agency. They are derived redescriptions of temporal dependency structures already grounded in organizational closure, measurement, and control~\citep{nave2025drive}. The final theoretical task is therefore to explain how the present framework can use these tools without inheriting the substance metaphysics and universalizing tendencies often associated with the famous Free Energy Principle~\citep{friston2009free, friston2013life, kirchhoff2018markov}.
\section{Markov Blankets and Computational Enactivism Without Substance Metaphysics}
The proof-of-concept cases discussed above clarify the empirical scope of the theory, but they also force a final conceptual distinction. Throughout this paper, we have used the language of asynchronous dynamic Bayesian networks, joint distributions, generative models, Markov blankets, and active inference. These terms are useful only if their explanatory status is carefully restricted. They should not be treated as first principles from which life, autonomy, or agency are deduced~\citep{nave2025drive}. Rather, they are derived formalisms: probabilistic redescriptions of temporal dependency structures that become meaningful only after a living organization has already been demarcated in terms of closure, measurement, control, and material self-maintenance~\citep{di2022laying}. This restriction is not a minor philosophical caution, but what prevents the present framework from collapsing into the universalizing tendencies often associated with the Free Energy Principle (FEP)~\citep{friston2009free}. The claim is not that any system with a Markov blanket is alive, autonomous, or agentive. Nor is the claim that organisms are literally Bayesian networks. The stronger and more careful claim is that, once a semantically closed organization has been temporally unfolded, its changing dependency structure can be redescribed using probabilistic tools. In this order of explanation, organizational closure comes first; Bayesian description comes second.
\subsection{Closure before inference}
The first principle of the present framework is organizational closure, not active inference. A living organization is not identified because it minimizes free energy, occupies expected states, or possesses a statistical boundary, as in~\citet{ramstead2023bayesian}. In our approach, a living organization is identified because its efficient causes are produced, maintained and transformed by the organization itself, while remaining materially open to the environment~\citep{rosen1991life, montevil2015biological, hofmeyr2021biochemically}. Only after this organizational unity has been identified does it become legitimate to ask how its temporal dependencies can be represented probabilistically. This order directly addresses one of~\citet{nave2025drive}'s central worries about Markov-blanket realism.
If Markov blankets are treated as ontological foundations, they appear to explain autonomy by presupposing the very organization that they are meant to identify~\citep{biehl2021technical}. A cell membrane, metabolic network, or sensorimotor boundary is produced and repaired by the activity of the organism; a Markov blanket, by contrast, is a statistical structure defined relative to a model. It cannot, by itself, explain why a living boundary exists, why it persists under material turnover, or why its maintenance matters to the system~\citep{nave2022boundaries}. The present framework reverses this explanatory direction. The Markov blanket is not the source of the organism's boundary, but a possible redescription of dependency relations among processes already embedded in a self-maintaining organization~\citep{virgo2025good}. This makes it possible to use the formal strengths of Markov blankets without converting them into metaphysical foundations. A blanket may help us describe how internal, sensory, and active variables are conditionally related; it does not explain why those variables belong to a living unity in the first place~\citep{clark2017knit}.
The ADBN induced by the temporal parametrization of an $(F, A)$-system (and of any other closed relational model) should be understood in the same restricted way. Following~\citet{korbak2023self}, each constitutive mapping was associated with a characteristic timescale, supporting the idea that constraints and the processes that produce or maintain them operate across different temporal regimes~\citep{montevil2015biological}. This temporal unfolding does not add a new substance or hidden cognitive principle to the relational model. It simply makes explicit that a closed organization cannot be operationally understood as a timeless diagram~\citep{varela1975calculus}. The resulting ADBN is therefore not the organism's essence, but a formal reconstruction of how the organization constrains its own future states through asynchronous dependencies. Its nodes represent variables associated with components, processes, or mappings; its edges represent conditional dependencies generated by the temporal unfolding of the organization. In this sense, the ADBN is a model of the organization as seen through a probabilistic lens, not a replacement for the relational organization itself.
This distinction matters because the ADBN can be mistaken for a fixed internal model. That would be misleading. The relevant generative structure is not imposed from outside, nor is it assumed as a pre-given veridical model of the world. It is produced by the organization's own history of material interactions, and it is continuously revised as the organization adapts. Thus, the internal model associated with a living organization is not a static representation stored somewhere inside the organism, but a processually maintained dependency structure whose variables, probabilities, couplings, and possibly topology may change as the organization reconstructs its own conditions of existence~\citep{guenin2024contextuality}. This is the point at which the present framework can retain something valuable from active-inference language while avoiding its strongest overextensions. A temporally unfolded organizationally closed organization can be described \emph{as if} it were maintaining and revising a generative model of its own organism--environment coupling~\citep{virgo2025good}. But this model is not the metaphysical ground of life. It is the probabilistic trace of a more basic organizational fact: the system produces and maintains the constraints through which environmental perturbations become meaningful for its own continuation~\citep{fabregas2026organism}.
\subsection{Nested Markov blankets in an unfolded organization}
\citet{kiverstein2022problem} propose that Markov blankets can be used to model sensorimotor autonomy by considering the enabling relations among component processes. In their account, each component process may be associated with its own blanket. Two components stand in an enabling relation when the active states of one component help maintain the sensory states required for the viability of another. If these relations are reciprocally organized, the system as a whole can maintain itself as a precarious unity~\citep[p. 9]{kiverstein2022problem}. This proposal is valuable because it shifts attention away from a single global blanket and toward nested relations among component processes. Our temporally parametrized $(F, A)$-system provides a natural candidate for formalizing this idea. Instead of asking whether the organism has one Markov blanket, we can ask which subsets of variables in the ADBN form candidate blankets for particular component processes or closure loops. Given a time-indexed graph $\mathcal{G}_t$ with variables $V_t$, the Markov blanket of a subset $U \subset V_t$ can be written schematically as
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{MB}_{\mathcal{G}_t}(U) = \operatorname{Pa}(U) \cup \operatorname{Ch}(U) \cup \operatorname{Pa}(\operatorname{Ch}(U)) \setminus U ,
\end{equation}
where $\operatorname{Pa}(U)$ denotes the parents of $U$ and $\operatorname{Ch}(U)$ denotes the children of $U$. Notice this definition is purely graphical. It becomes biologically meaningful only when the resulting dependencies correspond to real measurement--control relations in the organization. This gives a precise way to connect~\citet{kiverstein2022problem}'s proposal with relational biology. For each component process, the candidate blanket should not be identified merely by graph topology. It should be tested against the causal and functional role of that process in the organization~\citep[p. 45]{korbak2023self}. Does it receive perturbations through genuine measuring structures? Does it affect the rest of the organization through genuine control structures? Does its continued activity contribute to the maintenance of the processes that maintain it?
If the answer is yes, then the blanket is not merely a statistical convenience; it is a formal redescription of an organizationally relevant interface. The resulting picture is not one global Markov blanket surrounding a pre-given organism, but a heterarchy of nested, partially overlapping blankets associated with the temporal maintenance of component processes. Some blankets may correspond to metabolic loops, others to sensing and response, others to internal fabrication and assembly, and others to higher-order regulatory dependencies. What matters is not that every blanket is ontologically real, but that the pattern of nested dependencies can reveal how the organization maintains its own viability through reciprocal enabling relations~\citep{bruineberg2022emperor}.
\subsection{Epistemic cuts, active inference, and anticipatory control}
The above also clarifies the relation between Markov blankets and Pattee's epistemic cuts~\citep{pattee2001physics}. A Markov blanket does not, by itself, generate syntax, symbols, or semantic interpretation. It gives an interface of conditional dependence. Syntax, in the biosemiotic sense, requires more: relatively rate-independent symbol vehicles, an interpreter capable of treating differences among those vehicles as differences that matter, and an organization in which such interpretation has functional value~\citep{pattee2013epistemic}. Without these ingredients, a blanket is only a statistical partition~\citep{williams2022markov}. This point is crucial for avoiding a common inflationary move. One might be tempted to say that because a Markov blanket separates internal from external states, it already captures the epistemic cut. That is too fast. The epistemic cut is not merely a boundary between variables. It is a functional distinction between symbolic vehicles and the rate-dependent dynamics they measure or control. A Markov blanket may help redescribe that distinction once it exists, but it cannot explain the origin of symbolic vehicles, interpreters, or semantic closure~\citep{facchin2023extended}.
At most, Markov-blanket language can help formulate the conditions under which syntactic vehicles become stable within a living organization. First, there must be a timescale separation that allows some internal structures to behave as relatively rate-independent tokens with respect to the dynamics they regulate~\citep{montevil2015biological}. Second, there must be a dedicated interpretive organization that treats differences among those tokens as functionally relevant~\citep{jaeger2024naturalizing}. Third, that interpreter must itself be produced or maintained by the organization~\citep{pattee2012cell}. These are not consequences of Markov blankets alone. They are biological conditions that a blanket-based redescription must respect. In this sense, the epistemic cut precedes the Markov blanket in the order of biological explanation. The blanket can help us identify how the cut is embedded in a larger dependency structure, but the cut is grounded in measurement and control, not in conditional independence alone~\citep{pattee2012does}. The same point applies to syntax. A system does not acquire syntax because its variables are separated by a blanket. It acquires syntax when discrete, relatively inert vehicles become available for combinatorial control within a self-producing semiotic organization~\citep{waters2012neumann}.
Once this restriction is in place, active inference can be used in a more disciplined way. In the present framework, active inference does not define life. It redescribes one possible functional consequence of temporally unfolded closure. A semantically closed organization with sensing and response capacities can use present perturbations to modulate future organism--environment coupling. This is why the extended $(F, A)$-system naturally suggests a primitive anticipatory structure: environmental signals do not merely trigger reactions, but become integrated into a self-maintaining organization whose present dynamics bias future viable trajectories~\citep{egbert2023behaviour}. This is not the same as saying that every organism explicitly minimizes free energy. Nor is it necessary to interpret free energy as a universal metaphysical principle governing all self-organizing systems. The safer interpretation is methodological: active-inference formalisms may provide a useful language for describing how some organisms regulate their coupling to the environment under uncertainty~\citep{baltieri2025bayesian}. The deeper biological explanation remains organizational. The organism acts in light of possible futures because it is a temporally extended, materially precarious, semantically closed organization whose constraints must be continuously repaired and revised.
This also clarifies why the internal model in the present theory avoids the circularity criticized by~\citet{nave2025drive}. In many active-inference narratives, the generative model appears already in place, and learning becomes a matter of updating parameters within a pre-established state space. In the present account, the generative structure has an origin. It is chemically, materially, and organizationally generated through closure, then temporally unfolded into a revisable dependency structure. The model is not given first and used to explain life; it is produced by living organization as one of the consequences of temporalized self-maintenance. The strongest version of this claim, however, remains future work. It is not enough to say that the associated ADBN joint distribution changes over time. Genuine open-ended agency requires that the organization can modify more than probabilities. It must be able, at least in principle, to transform variables, alphabets, interpretive roles, measurement repertoires, and coupling topologies. The present framework points toward this possibility through formal openness in $(F, A)$-systems, but a complete mathematical account of topology-changing ADBNs remains to be developed.
\subsection{From instrumentalism to constrained realism}
This restricted use of ADBNs, Markov blankets, and active inference also clarifies the sense in which the present framework is \emph{computational enactivist}. The term, coined by~\citet{korbak2021computational}, is potentially misleading because it has been associated with attempts to unify enactivism and the FEP. Our use of the term is different. It does not begin from Fristonian metaphysics, nor does it treat free-energy minimization as the foundation of life or mind. It begins from~\citet{rosen1991life}'s relational biology,~\citet{pattee2001physics}'s symbol--matter complementarity,~\citet{hofmeyr2021biochemically}'s $(F, A)$-systems, and~\citet{cariani1989design}'s account of measurement, control, and emergent semantic functions. The computational side of the framework lies in the fact that living organizations do manipulate relatively discrete, rate-independent structures. They use symbolic vehicles, codes, and syntactic relations to construct, repair, and regulate their own functional organization~\citep{waters2021behavior}. The enactive side lies in the fact that these symbolic processes are not detached from material embodiment, thermodynamic precariousness, or organism--environment coupling~\citep{clark2017knit}. Computation is not an autonomous layer floating above life, but a functional regime inside a broader architecture of measurement, control, self-production, and adaptive action~\citep{cariani2011semiotics}.
This position also avoids the opposite extreme. Purely anti-computational versions of enactivism risk losing the formal structure needed to explain how organisms stabilize memory, coordinate action, and preserve functional distinctions through time~\citep{di2022laying}. Conversely, purely computational approaches risk reducing life to syntax and losing the pragmatic dimension that makes symbols matter~\citep{pattee2019simulations}. The present framework occupies the middle path: syntactic operations are real and indispensable, but they are biologically meaningful only when embedded in a self-maintaining organization that measures, controls, and reconstructs its own conditions of viability~\citep{lopez2025closing}. In this sense, computational enactivism should not be understood as a compromise between two already complete theories, but a reconstruction of both~\citep{rodriguez2026every}. Computationalism is corrected by requiring measurement, control, embodiment, and semantic closure. Enactivism is sharpened by providing a formal account of how self-maintaining organization can generate revisable anticipatory structures. The result is neither a Turing-machine theory of life nor a vague appeal to organismic holism, but a process-ontological account of how living systems become capable of meaningful action~\citep{dupre2020life}.
There remains a final interpretive question: should the ADBN and its blankets be understood instrumentally, realistically, or something in between? A purely instrumental reading would say that these formalisms are useful descriptions imposed by an observer (e.g.,~\citet{bruineberg2022emperor}). A strong realist reading would say that the organism literally is an ADBN, literally has Markov blankets, and literally performs active inference (e.g.,~\citet{friston2013life}). Both readings are misleading. The present framework requires a constrained realism, such as~\citet{mitchell2023bearable}'s \emph{metaphysical pragmatism} or~\citet{weckstrom2023natural}'s \emph{perspectival realism}. The probabilistic model is observer-constructed, but it is constrained by real organizational relations of measurement, control, and closure. This is similar to the status of the epistemic cut. The cut is not an ontological dualism between matter and symbol, but neither is it arbitrary~\citep{pattee2013epistemic}. It reflects the fact that some functional distinctions disappear when everything is reduced to microscopic dynamics~\citep{pattee2007laws}. Likewise, the ADBN is not an extra substance inside the organism, but it is not arbitrary either. It is a formal redescription of dependencies generated by temporally organized biological processes. Its adequacy depends on whether it tracks the real functional architecture of the system.
This constrained realism also protects the theory from pan-inferential overreach. Many systems can be described statistically. Many systems can be partitioned into conditionally dependent variables. Many systems can be interpreted \emph{as if} they were minimizing some quantity. None of that is sufficient for agency. Agency requires that these dependencies be embedded in a materially precarious organization whose measurement--control relations help maintain and revise the conditions of its own existence. The ADBN matters only because it is derived from such an organization. The present section has restricted the status of the probabilistic language used throughout the paper, but it has not solved every problem. Three open questions are especially important.
First, a general method is still needed for identifying biologically meaningful blankets inside a temporally unfolded relational organization. Graph-theoretic blankets are easy to define; biologically meaningful blankets require independent evidence of measurement, control, and closure. Second, a stronger formalism is needed for cases in which adaptation changes not only probabilities but variables, alphabets, interpretive roles, and graph topology. Third, the relation between local component blankets and organism-level agency must be clarified in multiscale systems. These open questions should not be treated as weaknesses of the framework. They are the point at which the theory becomes experimentally and mathematically productive. If Markov blankets are derived formalisms, then the task is not to discover one universal blanket of life, but to identify which dependency structures are produced and maintained by living organizations, how those structures change across timescales, and when such changes become sufficient for autonomy, goal-directedness, agency, and open-endedness. In this way, the framework turns the philosophical debate over active inference into a concrete research program.
The resulting picture is therefore deliberately non-Fristonian. Life is not explained by free-energy minimization. Agency is not explained by the mere possession of a blanket. Cognition is not explained by treating organisms as generic inferential machines. Instead, free-energy, blanket, and inference languages become useful only when subordinated to a more basic account of biological organization: materially open, semantically closed, temporally unfolded, and capable of revising the measurement--control relations through which its future possibilities become meaningful. This completes the theoretical arc of the paper. The earlier sections established why biological agency cannot be reduced to stability, goal-directedness, or mechanism alone. The middle sections derived a graded hierarchy from proto-agency to open-ended agency and proposed operational handles for testing it. The proof-of-concept section showed how these handles may apply across protocells, unicellular behavior, synthetic living machines, multicellular systems, and neural organization. The present section has clarified the status of the probabilistic and active-inference vocabulary used along the way. What remains is to summarize the theory, its limits, and the research program it opens.
\section{Discussion}
The aim of this paper has not been to add one more definition of agency to an already crowded theoretical landscape, but to show how several concepts that are often conflated can be systematically distinguished once living organization is treated as temporally unfolded semantic closure. The central result is a graded organizational account in which autonomy, goal-directedness, agency, and open-endedness form nested but non-equivalent thresholds. Autonomy arises when a system maintains the efficient causes of its own organization under material openness~\citep{rosen1991life, montevil2015biological}. Goal-directedness appears when such precarious organization becomes viability-biased, so that some trajectories count as preserving the system while others count as breakdown~\citep{veloz2021goals, heylighen2023meaning}. Agency begins when viability-biased organization acquires an endogenous anticipatory structure that selectively modulates organism--environment coupling~\citep{moreno2018minimal, newman2025agency}. Open-endedness begins when that anticipatory organization can reconstruct the very space of future possibilities through which viability, action, and relevance are defined~\citep{pattee2019evolved, lopez2026characterizing}.
This ordering helps avoid two symmetrical mistakes. On the one hand, agency should not be identified with any form of self-organization, robustness, or attractor-seeking behavior~\citep{jaeger2023fourth, bourrat2026agency}. Many non-living systems display stability, cyclicity, or spontaneous order without producing the constraints that make their own persistence possible~\citep{deacon2014transition, mossio2017makes}. On the other hand, agency should not be treated as an all-or-nothing property added mysteriously to already living matter~\citep{sultan2022bridging, difrisco2025biological}. The hierarchy derived above suggests a gradual pathway: structured chemical dependencies can precede closure; closure can precede full anticipatory modulation; and anticipatory modulation can precede open-ended reconstruction. In this way, agency is neither a primitive gift nor a merely observer-imposed metaphor, but an organizational achievement with identifiable precursors.
A second contribution of the paper is to show why temporality is not an optional supplement to relational biology. Relational models are powerful precisely because they capture organizational entailment without reducing living systems to fixed state-space dynamics~\citep{louie2013more, hofmeyr2021biochemically}. Yet, the very self-reference that makes closure biologically distinctive cannot be operationally understood outside time~\citep{varela1975calculus, reichel2011snakes}. A closed organization must appear alternately as producer and produced, interpreter and interpreted, constraint and constrained process. By assigning characteristic timescales to the mappings of an $(F, A)$-system, we do not abandon relational biology for ordinary dynamics. Rather, we make explicit the temporal form in which closure can persist, fail, repair itself, and become anticipatory~\citep{montevil2015biological, korbak2023self}.
This point is especially important for the status of the ADBN formalism developed throughout the paper. The ADBN is not the organism itself, nor is it a universal law of self-organization. It is a derived redescription of the temporal dependency structure of a semantically closed organization. This restriction allows us to retain the useful language of generative models, Markov blankets, and active inference without treating them as ontological foundations~\citep{bruineberg2022emperor, nave2025drive}. The organism is not alive because it has a Markov blanket. Rather, once a living organization has been identified through closure, measurement, control, and self-maintenance, Markov-blanket-like structures may help redescribe how its component processes enable one another across time, allowing us to experimentally track the development and evolution of such organization.
The paper also clarifies the sense in which this theory is computational enactivist. The computational aspect lies in the fact that living systems depend on relatively discrete, rate-independent structures, symbolic vehicles, and syntactic relations that participate in the construction and regulation of biological function~\citep{pattee2001physics, waters2021behavior}. The enactive aspect lies in the fact that these structures are meaningful only within materially precarious organizations that measure, control, act, and reconstruct their coupling with the environment~\citep{cariani1989design, pattee2013epistemic}. It should be noted that the existence of both epistemic modes of description (and their interdependence) does not constitute an ontological dualism, but rather an epistemic necessity inherent in our modeling capacities~\citep{weckstrom2023natural}. Thus, computation here is neither rejected nor universalized, but placed inside a broader architecture of semantic closure, measurement--control complementarity, and adaptive self-production~\citep{rodriguez2026every}.
The operational section translated this conceptual hierarchy into a preliminary suite of measurable quantities built upon previous existent literature: Semantic Closure Index (SCI), Measurement--Control Complementarity (MCC), Anticipatory Modulation Index (AMI), Affordance Reconstruction Rate (ARR), Syntactic Open-endedness (SO), and Viability-Corrected Skill Acquisition (VCKA). These quantities should not be interpreted as fully validated metrics. Their function is more modest and more important; they specify what would have to be measured if the preceding theory is correct. In this sense, the metric suite is an answer to~\citet{difrisco2025biological}'s worry that biological agency lacks a proper research program. The proposed theory becomes experimentally meaningful only insofar as it generates testable contrasts among systems that merely self-organize, systems that maintain closure, systems that anticipate, and systems that reconstruct their own future possibilities.
The proof-of-concept cases were introduced in this same spirit. Abiotic self-reproducing vesicles, \emph{Physarum polycephalum}, xenobots, multicellular collectives, and neural systems were not presented as confirmations of the theory. They were used as stress tests and, of course, do not constitute an exhaustive list of instances where our theory can be applied. Each case separates features that are often collapsed: reproduction without full semantic closure~\citep{katla2025self}, coordination without a nervous system~\citep{gyllingberg2026self}, constructed biological organization without ordinary machine programmability~\citep{blackiston2021cellular}, multicellular agency without simple reduction to individual cells~\citep{newman2025agency}, and neural symbol--dynamics relations without a single privileged causal level~\citep{pinotsis2025ephaptic}. The value of these cases is that they show where the proposed metrics could succeed, where they could fail, and where the theory must be refined.
Several limitations follow from this. First, the mathematical account of topology-changing ADBNs remains incomplete. The present paper argues that open-ended agency requires more than changes in probability values within a fixed dependency graph. It requires changes in variables, alphabets, interpretive roles, measurement repertoires, and coupling topologies. However, a full formalism for such transformations has not been developed here. We need to reformulate part of Rosen’s relational biology in modern mathematical terms~\citep{zafiris2012rosen, loregian2020rosen}, refining our theoretical tools and developing new experimental benchmarks for agency~\citep{baltieri2026mathematical}. The present ADBN construction therefore captures the first step: how temporalized closure can be redescribed as a history-dependent probabilistic structure. The next step is to formalize how such a structure can transform its own space of variables without being reduced to a predefined transition system.
Second, the operational criteria remain perspectival \emph{sensu}~\citet{jaeger2026reengineering}. Any attempt to measure closure, viability, anticipation, or semantic reconstruction requires the investigator to choose observables, timescales, perturbations, and relevant organizational boundaries~\citep{mossio2013emergence, weckstrom2023natural}. This does not make the theory arbitrary, but it does mean that empirical applications must be explicit about the explanatory scale at which closure is claimed~\citep{winning2020mechanistic, cserban2026rethinking}, as well as looking for alternative ways of explanation in science~\citep{juarrero1999dynamics, santos2023emergence}. A proposed closure relation should be treated as a hypothesis about a target organization, not as a metaphysical declaration~\citep{winning2020mechanistic}. It is supported when intervention reveals internally maintained enablement relations; it is weakened when the allegedly internal constraint is externally supplied, non-functional, or irrelevant to viability-preserving organization.
Third, the extension beyond unicellularity remains programmatic. The paper has argued that the framework is not intrinsically cell-bound, since different relational diagrams may characterize different scales of self-referential organization~\citep{cardenas2018rosennean, hofmeyr2021biochemically}. Yet, it has not supplied a full relational theory of multicellular or neural agency. Such a theory would need to specify how multiple semantically closed or partially closed organizations couple, compete, synchronize, or compose into higher-order units~\citep{arnellos2015multicellular, newman2025agency}. In neural systems, it would also need to clarify how symbolic switching states, analog dynamics, embodiment, and organism-level viability form a coherent measurement--control architecture~\citep{cariani2001symbols, craver2007explaining, ross2024causation}. These are not small extensions of the present theory, but major future projects to be developed.
Fourth, the framework has not solved the problem of realization~\citep{rosen1971some}. It tells us what kinds of organization would be needed for life-like agency, but it does not yet construct such organization from scratch. This distinction is important. A simulation of an ADBN, a digital model of closure, or a Bayesian reconstruction of biological behavior is not yet a realization of agency~\citep{pattee2019simulations}. Realization would require physical systems in which measurement, control, material turnover, constraint maintenance, and semantic reconstruction are implemented in the substrate itself~\citep{cariani1989design, cariani1993evolve}. This is why the notion of neomachines remains a design constraint rather than an achieved technology. To build life-like agency, one must not merely add computation to matter; one must construct matter organized so that it participates in the production and transformation of the constraints guiding computation~\citep{cariani1998towards, cariani2009strategies}.
These limitations also specify what would count as empirical progress. The theory would gain support if systems with stronger internally maintained measurement--control organization score higher on the proposed metrics than systems whose behavior is generated by externally imposed constraints. It would gain support if perturbations to inferred anticipatory structures selectively impair adaptive action, while perturbations to irrelevant correlations do not. It would gain support if systems such as unicellular organisms, biobots, or synthetic protocells occupy different regions of the agency metric space in ways that match their known organizational capacities. Conversely, the theory would be weakened if ordinary dissipative structures, fixed controllers, or purely externally programmed machines score as highly agentive as living systems under the same criteria. Experimental verification of the present theory remains a task for future work.
Remarkably, the most important risk of falsification concerns open-endedness. If all the proposed metrics can be satisfied by systems that merely optimize within a fixed externally specified state space, then the theory has failed to capture what is distinctive about living agency~\citep{difrisco2025biological}. A genuinely open-ended agent should not merely choose among options already provided by an external model. It should be able to modify which variables matter, which actions are possible, which affordances are available, and which future states count as viable~\citep{longo2012no, erwin2017topology, pattee2019evolved}. The empirical challenge is therefore to distinguish parameter learning from semantic reconstruction, and robust control from the production of new measurement--control relations.
Despite these open problems, the framework developed here provides a unified research program. It brings together relational biology, physical biosemiotics, organismic biology, ecological affordances, active-inference formalisms, and process philosophy without reducing any of them to the others. Relational biology supplies the logic of closure; physical biosemiotics supplies the irreducibility of measurement and control; ecological psychology supplies the situated structure of affordances; active inference supplies a restricted formal language for anticipatory regulation; and process ontology prevents the resulting synthesis from hardening into a substance metaphysics. The result is not a final theory of all agency, but a principled way to ask when matter becomes organized so as to act on behalf of its own continued possibility.
\section{Conclusion}
This paper has developed a temporally grounded theory of biological agency based on the relational model introduced in~\citet{lopez2025closing}. The central claim is that agency is not identical to stability, computation, goal-directedness, or autonomy. Agency emerges when a precarious self-producing organization becomes temporally structured in such a way that its internally generated anticipatory dynamics selectively modulate organism--environment coupling in light of possible futures. Open-endedness emerges when this anticipatory organization can reconstruct its own future space of possibilities. To defend this claim, we first argued that self-reference cannot be operationally understood outside time. By temporally parametrizing $(F, A)$-systems, we can redescribe semantically closed organizations as history-dependent ADBNs whose joint distributions are not fixed once and for all, but depend on context, substrate, and prior interaction. This does not reduce life to a Bayesian network. Rather, it provides a formal redescription of how a closed organization unfolds, maintains coherence across timescales, and acquires a primitive anticipatory structure.
We then derived weaker temporalized organizations in order to reconstruct a hierarchy from elemental chemical transformations to situated semantic closure. This hierarchy allowed autonomy, goal-directedness, agency, and open-endedness to be distinguished as nested thresholds rather than synonyms. Autonomy corresponds to closure under material openness; goal-directedness to viability-biased maintenance; agency to endogenous anticipatory modulation; and open-endedness to the reconstruction of future possibilities. This ordering avoids both the inflation of agency into any adaptive behavior and the restriction of agency to fully developed cognitive systems. The operational part of the paper proposed a preliminary metric suite intended to make this hierarchy empirically tractable. The Semantic Closure Index, Measurement--Control Complementarity, Anticipatory Modulation Index, Affordance Reconstruction Rate, Syntactic Open-endedness, and Viability-Corrected Skill Acquisition are not final measurements of agency. They are operational handles: quantities that indicate what must be tracked if the theory is to become experimentally testable. In this way, the framework attempts to convert biological agency from a suggestive vocabulary into a falsifiable research program, bridging philosophy and experimental biology~\citep{difrisco2026biology}.
Finally, we clarified the status of the probabilistic and active-inference vocabulary used throughout the paper. Markov blankets and active inference do not explain autonomy from first principles. They can redescribe dependency structures within organizations already identified by closure, measurement, and control. Likewise, computational enactivism is not here understood as Fristonian metaphysics, but as a process-ontological synthesis in which computation is embedded within materially grounded, semantically closed, and enactively situated organization. The theory remains incomplete in several respects. A full mathematics of topology-changing ADBNs has not yet been developed. The proposed metrics require calibration in concrete biological and synthetic systems. Multicellular and neural agency require their own relational diagrams, rather than a simple extrapolation from the self-manufacturing cell. Above all, the physical realization of neomachines capable of self-produced semantic reconstruction remains a future experimental goal. Still, these limitations are productive: they specify the next steps required for a general theory of agency to become a working scientific program.
With our approach, the problem of agency has not been solved once and for all, but has been placed on firmer ground. Matter becomes agentive when it is organized so as not merely to persist, but to maintain, interpret, and transform the constraints through which persistence remains possible. In that sense, agency is not a substance added to matter, nor a metaphor imposed by observers, nor a universal property of systems that minimize uncertainty. Agency is a temporal achievement of living organization. We now know that its synthetic realization is, quite literally, a matter of time.
\section{Author Contributions}
A.J.L.-D.: formal analysis, visualization, conceptualization, investigation, methodology, validation; C.G.: conceptualization, supervision, funding acquisition, validation.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors acknowledge Kate Nave, Johannes Jaeger, Manuel Baltieri, Avel Guénin--Carlut, Michael Levin, Ben Gaskin, and Martin Biehl for stimulating conversations and their valuable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript, as well as anonymous reviewers for constructive comments when submitting this work.
\section{Data Accessibility}
This article has no additional data.
\section{Funding Statement}
C.G. acknowledges support from the SSIE School.
\footnotesize
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
\bibliography{example} % replace by the name of your .bib file
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{}
\bibitem[Abramsky et~al., 2025]{abramsky2025open}
Abramsky, S., Banzhaf, W., Caves, L.~S., Levin, M., Machado, P., Ofria, C., Stepney, S., and White, R. (2025).
\newblock Open questions about time and self-reference in living systems.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11423}.
\bibitem[Alim et~al., 2017]{alim2017mechanism}
Alim, K., Andrew, N., Pringle, A., and Brenner, M.~P. (2017).
\newblock Mechanism of signal propagation in physarum polycephalum.
\newblock {\em Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 114(20):5136--5141.
\bibitem[Arnellos and Moreno, 2015]{arnellos2015multicellular}
Arnellos, A. and Moreno, A. (2015).
\newblock Multicellular agency: an organizational view.
\newblock {\em Biology \& Philosophy}, 30(3):333--357.
\bibitem[Ashby, 1947]{ashby1947principles}
Ashby, W.~R. (1947).
\newblock Principles of the self-organizing dynamic system.
\newblock {\em The Journal of general psychology}, 37(2):125--128.
\bibitem[Ashby, 1949]{ashby1949electronic}
Ashby, W.~R. (1949).
\newblock The electronic brain.
\newblock {\em Radio Electronics}, pages 77--79.
\bibitem[Ashby, 1952]{ashby1952design}
Ashby, W.~R. (1952).
\newblock {\em Design for a Brain: The Origin of Adaptive Behaviour}.
\newblock Chapman \& Hall, London.
\bibitem[Austin, 2021]{austin2021form}
Austin, C.~J. (2021).
\newblock Form, cause, and explanation in biology: A neo-aristotelian perspective.
\newblock In {\em Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives on Formal Causation}, pages 238--268. Routledge.
\bibitem[Ball, 2023a]{ball2023life}
Ball, P. (2023a).
\newblock How life works: a user’s guide to the new biology.
\newblock In {\em How Life Works}. University of Chicago Press.
\bibitem[Ball, 2023b]{ball2023organisms}
Ball, P. (2023b).
\newblock Organisms as agents of evolution.
\newblock {\em John Templeton Foundation: West Conshohocken, PA, USA}.
\bibitem[Ball, 2023c]{ball2023distinguishes}
Ball, P. (2023c).
\newblock What distinguishes the elephant from e. coli: Causal spreading and the biological principles of metazoan complexity.
\newblock {\em Journal of Biosciences}, 48(2):14.
\bibitem[Baltieri et~al., 2025]{baltieri2025bayesian}
Baltieri, M., Biehl, M., Capucci, M., and Virgo, N. (2025).
\newblock A bayesian interpretation of the internal model principle.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00511}.
\bibitem[Baltieri and Suzuki, 2026]{baltieri2026mathematical}
Baltieri, M. and Suzuki, K. (2026).
\newblock Mathematical approaches to the study of agents.
\newblock {\em Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B}.
\newblock In Press.
\bibitem[Barandiaran et~al., 2009]{barandiaran2009defining}
Barandiaran, X.~E., Di~Paolo, E., and Rohde, M. (2009).
\newblock Defining agency: Individuality, normativity, asymmetry, and spatio-temporality in action.
\newblock {\em Adaptive behavior}, 17(5):367--386.
\bibitem[Barbieri, 1981]{barbieri1981ribotype}
Barbieri, M. (1981).
\newblock The ribotype theory on the origin of life.
\newblock {\em Journal of theoretical Biology}, 91(4):545--601.
\bibitem[Bartlett and Louapre, 2022]{bartlett2022provenance}
Bartlett, S. and Louapre, D. (2022).
\newblock Provenance of life: Chemical autonomous agents surviving through associative learning.
\newblock {\em Physical Review E}, 106(3):034401.
\bibitem[Barwich and Rodriguez, 2024]{barwich2024rage}
Barwich, A.-S. and Rodriguez, M.~J. (2024).
\newblock Rage against the what? the machine metaphor in biology.
\newblock {\em Biology \& Philosophy}, 39(4):14.
\bibitem[Bechtel and Bich, 2023]{bechtel2023organisms}
Bechtel, W. and Bich, L. (2023).
\newblock Organisms need mechanisms; mechanisms need organisms.
\newblock In {\em New mechanism: explanation, emergence and reduction}, pages 85--108. Springer.
\bibitem[Bechtel and Bich, 2024]{bechtel2024situating}
Bechtel, W. and Bich, L. (2024).
\newblock Situating homeostasis in organisms: maintaining organization through time.
\newblock {\em The Journal of Physiology}, 602(22):6003--6020.
\bibitem[Beekman and Latty, 2015]{beekman2015brainless}
Beekman, M. and Latty, T. (2015).
\newblock Brainless but multi-headed: decision making by the acellular slime mould physarum polycephalum.
\newblock {\em Journal of molecular biology}, 427(23):3734--3743.
\bibitem[Beer and Di~Paolo, 2023]{beer2023theoretical}
Beer, R.~D. and Di~Paolo, E.~A. (2023).
\newblock The theoretical foundations of enaction: Precariousness.
\newblock {\em Biosystems}, 223:104823.
\bibitem[Bich and Bechtel, 2021]{bich2021mechanism}
Bich, L. and Bechtel, W. (2021).
\newblock Mechanism, autonomy and biological explanation.
\newblock {\em Biology \& Philosophy}, 36(6):53.
\bibitem[Bich and Bechtel, 2022]{bich2022organization}
Bich, L. and Bechtel, W. (2022).
\newblock Organization needs organization: Understanding integrated control in living organisms.
\newblock {\em Studies in History and Philosophy of Science}, 93:96--106.
\bibitem[Bich et~al., 2019]{bich2019understanding}
Bich, L., Pradeu, T., and Moreau, J.-F. (2019).
\newblock Understanding multicellularity: the functional organization of the intercellular space.
\newblock {\em Frontiers in Physiology}, 10:1170.
\bibitem[Biehl et~al., 2021]{biehl2021technical}
Biehl, M., Pollock, F.~A., and Kanai, R. (2021).
\newblock A technical critique of some parts of the free energy principle.
\newblock {\em Entropy}, 23(3):293.
\bibitem[Blackiston et~al., 2021]{blackiston2021cellular}
Blackiston, D., Lederer, E., Kriegman, S., Garnier, S., Bongard, J., and Levin, M. (2021).
\newblock A cellular platform for the development of synthetic living machines.
\newblock {\em Science Robotics}, 6(52):eabf1571.
\bibitem[Bourgine and Varela, 1992]{bourgine1992towards}
Bourgine, P. and Varela, F.~J. (1992).
\newblock Towards a practice of autonomous systems.
\newblock In {\em Toward a practice of autonomous systems: Proceedings of the first European conference on artificial life}, volume~1. xi$\pm$xvii. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
\bibitem[Bourrat and Barron, 2026]{bourrat2026agency}
Bourrat, P. and Barron, A.~B. (2026).
\newblock Agency, goal directedness, and the levels of biological organization.
\newblock {\em BioScience}, page biag030.
\bibitem[Brown and Vittadello, 2025]{brown2025studying}
Brown, E. and Vittadello, S.~T. (2025).
\newblock Studying organisational closure in biological systems with process-enablement graphs.
\newblock {\em BioSystems}, page 105567.
\bibitem[Bruineberg et~al., 2022]{bruineberg2022emperor}
Bruineberg, J., Do{\l}{\k{e}}ga, K., Dewhurst, J., and Baltieri, M. (2022).
\newblock The emperor's new markov blankets.
\newblock {\em Behavioral and Brain Sciences}, 45:e183.
\bibitem[Capra and Luisi, 2014]{capra2014systems}
Capra, F. and Luisi, P.~L. (2014).
\newblock {\em The systems view of life: A unifying vision}.
\newblock Cambridge university press.
\bibitem[C{\'a}rdenas et~al., 2018]{cardenas2018rosennean}
C{\'a}rdenas, M.~L., Benomar, S., and Cornish-Bowden, A. (2018).
\newblock Rosennean complexity and its relevance to ecology.
\newblock {\em Ecological Complexity}, 35:13--24.
\bibitem[C{\'a}rdenas et~al., 2010]{cardenas2010closure}
C{\'a}rdenas, M.~L., Letelier, J.-C., Gutierrez, C., Cornish-Bowden, A., and Soto-Andrade, J. (2010).
\newblock Closure to efficient causation, computability and artificial life.
\newblock {\em Journal of Theoretical Biology}, 263(1):79--92.
\bibitem[Cariani, 1993]{cariani1993evolve}
Cariani, P. (1993).
\newblock To evolve an ear. epistemological implications of gordon pask's electrochemical devices.
\newblock {\em Systems research}, 10(3):19--33.
\bibitem[Cariani, 1998a]{cariani1998epistemic}
Cariani, P. (1998a).
\newblock Epistemic autonomy through adaptive sensing.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control (ISIC) held jointly with IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation (CIRA) Intell}, pages 718--723. IEEE.
\bibitem[Cariani, 1998b]{cariani1998towards}
Cariani, P. (1998b).
\newblock Towards an evolutionary semiotics: the emergence of new sign-functions in organisms and devices.
\newblock In {\em Evolutionary systems: biological and epistemological perspectives on selection and self-organization}, pages 359--376. Springer.
\bibitem[Cariani, 1999]{cariani1999temporal}
Cariani, P. (1999).
\newblock Temporal coding of periodicity pitch in the auditory system: an overview.
\newblock {\em Neural plasticity}, 6(4):147--172.
\bibitem[Cariani, 2001a]{cariani2001symbols}
Cariani, P. (2001a).
\newblock Symbols and dynamics in the brain.
\newblock {\em Biosystems}, 60(1-3):59--83.
\bibitem[Cariani, 2011]{cariani2011semiotics}
Cariani, P. (2011).
\newblock The semiotics of cybernetic percept-action systems.
\newblock {\em International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems (IJSSS)}, 1(1):1--17.
\bibitem[Cariani, 1989]{cariani1989design}
Cariani, P.~A. (1989).
\newblock {\em On the design of devices with emergent semantic functions}.
\newblock PhD thesis, State University of New York Binghamton, NY.
\bibitem[Cariani, 2001b]{cariani2001temporal}
Cariani, P.~A. (2001b).
\newblock Temporal coding of sensory information in the brain.
\newblock {\em Acoustical Science and Technology}, 22(2):77--84.
\bibitem[Cariani, 2009]{cariani2009strategies}
Cariani, P.~A. (2009).
\newblock Strategies for creating new informational primitives in minds and machines.
\newblock In McCormack, J. and D'Inverno, M., editors, {\em Computational Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach}, volume 9291 of {\em Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings}, pages 1--14. Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik.
\bibitem[Chollet, 2019]{chollet2019measure}
Chollet, F. (2019).
\newblock On the measure of intelligence.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01547}.
\bibitem[Church, 1936a]{church1936note}
Church, A. (1936a).
\newblock A note on the entscheidungsproblem.
\newblock {\em The journal of symbolic logic}, 1(1):40--41.
\bibitem[Church, 1936b]{church1936unsolvable}
Church, A. (1936b).
\newblock An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory.
\newblock {\em American journal of mathematics}, 58(2):345--363.
\bibitem[Clark, 2013]{clark2013whatever}
Clark, A. (2013).
\newblock Whatever next? predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science.
\newblock {\em Behavioral and brain sciences}, 36(3):181--204.
\bibitem[Clark, 2017]{clark2017knit}
Clark, A. (2017).
\newblock How to knit your own markov blanket: Resisting the second law with metamorphic minds.
\newblock In {\em Philosophy and predictive processing}, page~3. Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group.
\bibitem[Cornish-Bowden and C{\'a}rdenas, 2020]{cornish2020contrasting}
Cornish-Bowden, A. and C{\'a}rdenas, M.~L. (2020).
\newblock Contrasting theories of life: Historical context, current theories. in search of an ideal theory.
\newblock {\em Biosystems}, 188:104063.
\bibitem[Craver, 2007]{craver2007explaining}
Craver, C.~F. (2007).
\newblock {\em Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience}.
\newblock Clarendon Press.
\bibitem[David et~al., 2008]{david2008sense}
David, N., Newen, A., and Vogeley, K. (2008).
\newblock The “sense of agency” and its underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms.
\newblock {\em Consciousness and cognition}, 17(2):523--534.
\bibitem[Deacon and Cashman, 2013]{deacon2013teleology}
Deacon, T. and Cashman, T. (2013).
\newblock Teleology versus mechanism in biology: Beyond self-organization.
\newblock {\em Beyond mechanism: Putting life back into biology}, pages 287--308.
\bibitem[Deacon, 2011]{deacon2011incomplete}
Deacon, T.~W. (2011).
\newblock {\em Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter}.
\newblock W.W. Norton \& Company, New York.
\bibitem[Deacon, 2021]{deacon2021molecules}
Deacon, T.~W. (2021).
\newblock How molecules became signs.
\newblock {\em Biosemiotics}, 14(3):537--559.
\bibitem[Deacon et~al., 2014]{deacon2014transition}
Deacon, T.~W., Srivastava, A., and Bacigalupi, J.~A. (2014).
\newblock The transition from constraint to regulation at the origin of life.
\newblock {\em Front Biosci}, 19:945--57.
\bibitem[Di~Paolo et~al., 2022]{di2022laying}
Di~Paolo, E., Thompson, E., and Beer, R. (2022).
\newblock Laying down a forking path: Tensions between enaction and the free energy principle.
\newblock {\em Philosophy and the Mind Sciences}, 3.
\bibitem[Di~Paolo, 2005]{di2005autopoiesis}
Di~Paolo, E.~A. (2005).
\newblock Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency.
\newblock {\em Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences}, 4(4):429--452.
\bibitem[DiFrisco and Gawne, 2025]{difrisco2025biological}
DiFrisco, J. and Gawne, R. (2025).
\newblock Biological agency: a concept without a research program.
\newblock {\em Journal of Evolutionary Biology}, 38(2):143--156.
\bibitem[DiFrisco and Orzack, 2026]{difrisco2026biology}
DiFrisco, J. and Orzack, S.~H. (2026).
\newblock Biology needs philosophy, but what philosophy?
\newblock {\em BioScience}, 76(5):417--428.
\bibitem[Doolittle and Inkpen, 2018]{doolittle2018processes}
Doolittle, W.~F. and Inkpen, S.~A. (2018).
\newblock Processes and patterns of interaction as units of selection: An introduction to itsnts thinking.
\newblock {\em Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 115(16):4006--4014.
\bibitem[Due{\~n}as-D{\'\i}ez and P{\'e}rez-Mercader, 2019]{duenas2019chemistry}
Due{\~n}as-D{\'\i}ez, M. and P{\'e}rez-Mercader, J. (2019).
\newblock How chemistry computes: {Language} recognition by non-biochemical chemical automata. from finite automata to {Turing} machines.
\newblock {\em Iscience}, 19:514--526.
\bibitem[Dupr{\'e}, 2020]{dupre2020life}
Dupr{\'e}, J. (2020).
\newblock Life as process.
\newblock {\em Epistemology \& Philosophy of Science}, 57(2):96--113.
\bibitem[Dupr{\'e} and Woodward, 2013]{dupre2013mechanism}
Dupr{\'e}, J. and Woodward, J. (2013).
\newblock Mechanism and causation in biology.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society}, pages 19--37.
\bibitem[Egbert et~al., 2023]{egbert2023behaviour}
Egbert, M., Hanczyc, M.~M., Harvey, I., Virgo, N., Parke, E.~C., Froese, T., Sayama, H., Penn, A.~S., and Bartlett, S. (2023).
\newblock Behaviour and the origin of organisms.
\newblock {\em Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres}, pages 1--26.
\bibitem[Ehresmann and Vanbremeersch, 2007]{ehresmann2007memory}
Ehresmann, A.~C. and Vanbremeersch, J.-P. (2007).
\newblock {\em Memory evolutive systems; hierarchy, emergence, cognition}.
\newblock Elsevier.
\bibitem[Eigen and Schuster, 2012]{eigen2012hypercycle}
Eigen, M. and Schuster, P. (2012).
\newblock {\em The hypercycle: a principle of natural self-organization}.
\newblock Springer Science \& Business Media.
\bibitem[Ellis, 2023]{ellis2023efficient}
Ellis, G.~F. (2023).
\newblock Efficient, formal, material, and final causes in biology and technology.
\newblock {\em Entropy}, 25(9):1301.
\bibitem[Erwin, 2017]{erwin2017topology}
Erwin, D.~H. (2017).
\newblock The topology of evolutionary novelty and innovation in macroevolution.
\newblock {\em Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences}, 372(1735):20160422.
\bibitem[F{\'a}bregas-Tejeda, 2026]{fabregas2026organism}
F{\'a}bregas-Tejeda, A. (2026).
\newblock {\em The organism-environment pairing: a historical and philosophical reappraisal}.
\newblock MIT Press.
\bibitem[Facchin, 2023]{facchin2023extended}
Facchin, M. (2023).
\newblock Extended predictive minds: do markov blankets matter? m. facchin.
\newblock {\em Review of Philosophy and Psychology}, 14(3):909--938.
\bibitem[Fodor, 1975]{fodor1975language}
Fodor, J.~A. (1975).
\newblock {\em The language of thought}, volume~5.
\newblock Harvard university press.
\bibitem[Friston, 2009]{friston2009free}
Friston, K. (2009).
\newblock The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain?
\newblock {\em Trends in cognitive sciences}, 13(7):293--301.
\bibitem[Friston, 2013]{friston2013life}
Friston, K. (2013).
\newblock Life as we know it.
\newblock {\em Journal of the Royal Society Interface}, 10(86):20130475.
\bibitem[Fulda, 2023]{fulda2023agential}
Fulda, F.~C. (2023).
\newblock Agential autonomy and biological individuality.
\newblock {\em Evolution \& Development}, 25(6):353--370.
\bibitem[Gallagher, 2023]{gallagher2023embodied}
Gallagher, S. (2023).
\newblock {\em Embodied and enactive approaches to cognition}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press.
\bibitem[Gambarotto, 2023]{gambarotto2023teleology}
Gambarotto, A. (2023).
\newblock Teleology and mechanism: a dialectical approach.
\newblock {\em Synthese}, 201(5):155.
\bibitem[G{\'a}nti, 2003]{ganti2003chemoton}
G{\'a}nti, T. (2003).
\newblock {\em Chemoton theory: theory of living systems}.
\newblock Springer Science \& Business Media.
\bibitem[Gibson, 1979]{gibson1979ecological}
Gibson, J.~J. (1979).
\newblock The ecological approach to visual perception.
\newblock {\em Boston: Houghton Mifflin.}
\bibitem[Gu{\'e}nin-Carlut, 2024]{guenin2024contextuality}
Gu{\'e}nin-Carlut, A. (2024).
\newblock Contextuality, cognitive engagement, and active inference.
\newblock In {\em International Workshop on Active Inference}, pages 260--274. Springer.
\bibitem[Gumuskaya et~al., 2025]{gumuskaya2025morphological}
Gumuskaya, G., Davey, N., Srivastava, P., Bender, A., Pio-Lopez, L., Hazel, D., and Levin, M. (2025).
\newblock The morphological, behavioral, and transcriptomic life cycle of anthrobots.
\newblock {\em Advanced Science}, 12(31):2409330.
\bibitem[Gyllingberg et~al., 2026]{gyllingberg2026self}
Gyllingberg, L., Haque, A., Ray, S.~K., Weber, G., Graham, J.~M., and Garnier, S. (2026).
\newblock Self-organizing physical and biochemical interactions explain diverse behaviours in physarum polycephalum.
\newblock {\em bioRxiv}, pages 2026--05.
\bibitem[Hern{\'a}ndez-Orozco et~al., 2018]{hernandez2018undecidability}
Hern{\'a}ndez-Orozco, S., Hern{\'a}ndez-Quiroz, F., and Zenil, H. (2018).
\newblock Undecidability and irreducibility conditions for open-ended evolution and emergence.
\newblock {\em Artificial Life}, 24(1):56--70.
\bibitem[Heylighen, 2023]{heylighen2023meaning}
Heylighen, F. (2023).
\newblock The meaning and origin of goal-directedness: a dynamical systems perspective.
\newblock {\em Biological Journal of the Linnean Society}, 139(4):370--387.
\bibitem[Hirota et~al., 2024]{hirota2024reality}
Hirota, R., Saigo, H., and Taguchi, S. (2024).
\newblock Reality of affordances: A category-theoretic approach.
\newblock In {\em ALIFE 2024: Proceedings of the 2024 Artificial Life Conference}, page~71. MIT Press.
\bibitem[Hofmeyr, 2018]{hofmeyr2018causation}
Hofmeyr, J.-H.~S. (2018).
\newblock Causation, constructors and codes.
\newblock {\em Biosystems}, 164:121--127.
\bibitem[Hofmeyr, 2021]{hofmeyr2021biochemically}
Hofmeyr, J.-H.~S. (2021).
\newblock A biochemically-realisable relational model of the self-manufacturing cell.
\newblock {\em Biosystems}, 207:104463.
\bibitem[Jaeger, 2023a]{jaeger2023artificial}
Jaeger, J. (2023a).
\newblock Artificial intelligence is algorithmic mimicry: why artificial" agents" are not (and won't be) proper agents.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07515}.
\bibitem[Jaeger, 2023b]{jaeger2023fourth}
Jaeger, J. (2023b).
\newblock The fourth perspective: Evolution and organismal agency.
\newblock In {\em Organization in biology}, pages 159--186. Springer.
\bibitem[Jaeger and Neustetter, 2026]{jaeger2026reengineering}
Jaeger, J. and Neustetter, M. (2026).
\newblock Re-engineering wimsatt for limited beings.
\bibitem[Jaeger et~al., 2024]{jaeger2024naturalizing}
Jaeger, J., Riedl, A., Djedovic, A., Vervaeke, J., and Walsh, D. (2024).
\newblock Naturalizing relevance realization: why agency and cognition are fundamentally not computational.
\newblock {\em Frontiers in psychology}, 15:1362658.
\bibitem[Juarrero, 1999]{juarrero1999dynamics}
Juarrero, A. (1999).
\newblock {\em Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System}.
\newblock MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
\bibitem[Juarrero, 2023]{juarrero2023context}
Juarrero, A. (2023).
\newblock {\em Context changes everything: How constraints create coherence}.
\newblock MIT Press.
\bibitem[Katla et~al., 2025]{katla2025self}
Katla, S.~K., Lin, C., and P{\'e}rez-Mercader, J. (2025).
\newblock Self-reproduction as an autonomous process of growth and reorganization in fully abiotic, artificial and synthetic cells.
\newblock {\em Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 122(22):e2412514122.
\bibitem[Kauffman, 2002]{kauffman2002laws}
Kauffman, L.~H. (2002).
\newblock Laws of form and form dynamics.
\newblock {\em Cybernetics \& Human Knowing}, 9(2):49--63.
\bibitem[Kauffman et~al., 1987]{kauffman1987self}
Kauffman, L.~H. et~al. (1987).
\newblock Self-reference and recursive forms.
\newblock {\em Journal of Social and Biological Structures}, 10(1):53--72.
\bibitem[Kauffman and Varela, 1980]{kauffman1980form}
Kauffman, L.~H. and Varela, F.~J. (1980).
\newblock Form dynamics.
\newblock {\em Journal of Social and Biological Structures}, 3(2):171--206.
\bibitem[Kauffman and Roli, 2021]{kauffman2021world}
Kauffman, S. and Roli, A. (2021).
\newblock The world is not a theorem.
\newblock {\em Entropy}, 23(11):1467.
\bibitem[Kauffman, 1992]{kauffman1992origins}
Kauffman, S.~A. (1992).
\newblock The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution.
\newblock In {\em Spin glasses and biology}, pages 61--100. World Scientific.
\bibitem[Kauffman, 2000]{kauffman2000investigations}
Kauffman, S.~A. (2000).
\newblock {\em Investigations}.
\newblock Oxford University Press.
\bibitem[Kauffman, 2019]{kauffman2019world}
Kauffman, S.~A. (2019).
\newblock {\em A world beyond physics: the emergence and evolution of life}.
\newblock Oxford University Press.
\bibitem[Kelso, 2016]{kelso2016self}
Kelso, J.~S. (2016).
\newblock On the self-organizing origins of agency.
\newblock {\em Trends in cognitive sciences}, 20(7):490--499.
\bibitem[Kendrew, 1967]{kendrew1967phage}
Kendrew, J.~C. (1967).
\newblock Phage and the origins of molecular biology.
\bibitem[Kirchhoff et~al., 2018]{kirchhoff2018markov}
Kirchhoff, M., Parr, T., Palacios, E., Friston, K., and Kiverstein, J. (2018).
\newblock The markov blankets of life: autonomy, active inference and the free energy principle.
\newblock {\em Journal of The royal society interface}, 15(138):20170792.
\bibitem[Kiverstein et~al., 2022]{kiverstein2022problem}
Kiverstein, J., Kirchhoff, M.~D., and Froese, T. (2022).
\newblock The problem of meaning: The free energy principle and artificial agency.
\newblock {\em Frontiers in Neurorobotics}, 16:844773.
\bibitem[Klyubin et~al., 2008]{klyubin2008keep}
Klyubin, A.~S., Polani, D., and Nehaniv, C.~L. (2008).
\newblock Keep your options open: An information-based driving principle for sensorimotor systems.
\newblock {\em PloS one}, 3(12):e4018.
\bibitem[Korbak, 2021]{korbak2021computational}
Korbak, T. (2021).
\newblock Computational enactivism under the free energy principle.
\newblock {\em Synthese}, 198(3):2743--2763.
\bibitem[Korbak, 2023]{korbak2023self}
Korbak, T. (2023).
\newblock Self-organisation,(m, r)--systems and enactive cognitive science.
\newblock {\em Adaptive Behavior}, 31(1):35--49.
\bibitem[Krakauer et~al., 2020]{krakauer2020information}
Krakauer, D., Bertschinger, N., Olbrich, E., Flack, J.~C., and Ay, N. (2020).
\newblock The information theory of individuality.
\newblock {\em Theory in Biosciences}, 139:209--223.
\bibitem[Kriegman et~al., 2020]{kriegman2020scalable}
Kriegman, S., Blackiston, D., Levin, M., and Bongard, J. (2020).
\newblock A scalable pipeline for designing reconfigurable organisms.
\newblock {\em Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 117(4):1853--1859.
\bibitem[Kubiak and Kloc, 2024]{kubiak2024timing}
Kubiak, J.~Z. and Kloc, M. (2024).
\newblock How the timing of biological processes is controlled and modified at the molecular and cellular level? 2.0.
\bibitem[Lane, 2024]{lane2024robert}
Lane, P.~A. (2024).
\newblock Robert rosen’s relational biology theory and his emphasis on non-algorithmic approaches to living systems.
\newblock {\em Mathematics}, 12(22):3529.
\bibitem[Letelier et~al., 2011]{letelier2011homme}
Letelier, J.-C., C{\'a}rdenas, M.~L., and Cornish-Bowden, A. (2011).
\newblock From l'homme machine to metabolic closure: steps towards understanding life.
\newblock {\em Journal of Theoretical Biology}, 286:100--113.
\bibitem[Levin, 2019]{levin2019computational}
Levin, M. (2019).
\newblock The computational boundary of a “self”: developmental bioelectricity drives multicellularity and scale-free cognition.
\newblock {\em Frontiers in psychology}, 10:493866.
\bibitem[Longo et~al., 2012]{longo2012no}
Longo, G., Mont{\'e}vil, M., and Kauffman, S. (2012).
\newblock No entailing laws, but enablement in the evolution of the biosphere.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 14th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation}, pages 1379--1392.
\bibitem[Loregian, 2020]{loregian2020rosen}
Loregian, F. (2020).
\newblock Rosen's no-go theorem for regular categories.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.11648}.
\bibitem[Louie, 2010]{louie2010robert}
Louie, A.~H. (2010).
\newblock Robert rosen's anticipatory systems.
\newblock {\em Foresight}, 12(3):18--29.
\bibitem[Louie, 2012]{louie2012anticipation}
Louie, A.~H. (2012).
\newblock Anticipation in (m, r)-systems.
\newblock {\em International Journal of General Systems}, 41(1):5--22.
\bibitem[Louie, 2013]{louie2013more}
Louie, A.~H. (2013).
\newblock {\em More than life itself: A synthetic continuation in relational biology}, volume~1.
\newblock Walter de Gruyter.
\bibitem[Lyon, 2020]{lyon2020minimal}
Lyon, P. (2020).
\newblock Of what is “minimal cognition” the half-baked version?
\newblock {\em Adaptive Behavior}, 28(6):407--424.
\bibitem[López-Díaz and Gershenson, 2025]{lopez2025closing}
López-Díaz, A.~J. and Gershenson, C. (2025).
\newblock Closing the loop: how semantic closure enables open-ended evolution?
\newblock {\em Journal of The Royal Society Interface}, 22(233):20250784.
\bibitem[López-Díaz et~al., 2026]{lopez2026characterizing}
López-Díaz, A.~J., Rivera~Torres, P.~J., Febres, G.~L., and Gershenson, C. (2026).
\newblock Characterizing open-ended evolution through undecidability mechanisms in random boolean networks.
\newblock {\em npj Systems Biology and Applications}.
\newblock in press.
\bibitem[Machatzke et~al., 2026]{machatzke2026dna}
Machatzke, C., Holtmannsp{\"o}tter, A.-L., Mutschler, H., and Boekhoven, J. (2026).
\newblock Dna affects the phenotype of fuel-dependent coacervate droplets.
\newblock {\em Nature Communications}.
\bibitem[Marques and Brito, 2014]{marques2014rise}
Marques, V. and Brito, C. (2014).
\newblock The rise and fall of the machine metaphor: Organizational similarities and differences between machines and living beings.
\newblock {\em Verifiche}, 43(1-4):77--111.
\bibitem[Marr, 2010]{marr2010vision}
Marr, D. (2010).
\newblock {\em Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information}.
\newblock MIT press.
\bibitem[Maturana and Varela, 1980]{maturana1980}
Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1980).
\newblock {\em {Autopoiesis and Cognition: The realization of living}}.
\newblock Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.
\bibitem[Mitchell and Krakauer, 2023]{mitchell2023debate}
Mitchell, M. and Krakauer, D.~C. (2023).
\newblock The debate over understanding in ai’s large language models.
\newblock {\em Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 120(13):e2215907120.
\bibitem[Mitchell, 2023]{mitchell2023bearable}
Mitchell, S.~D. (2023).
\newblock The bearable thinness of being: A pragmatist metaphysics of affordance.
\newblock In Andersen, H.~K. and Mitchell, S.~D., editors, {\em The Pragmatist Challenge: Pragmatist Metaphysics for Philosophy of Science}. Oxford University Press.
\bibitem[Mont{\'e}vil and Mossio, 2015]{montevil2015biological}
Mont{\'e}vil, M. and Mossio, M. (2015).
\newblock Biological organisation as closure of constraints.
\newblock {\em Journal of theoretical biology}, 372:179--191.
\bibitem[Moreno, 2018]{moreno2018minimal}
Moreno, A. (2018).
\newblock On minimal autonomous agency: natural and artificial.
\newblock {\em Complex Systems}, 27(3).
\bibitem[Moreno and Mossio, 2015]{moreno2015biological}
Moreno, A. and Mossio, M. (2015).
\newblock {\em Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical and Theoretical Enquiry}, volume~12 of {\em History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences}.
\newblock Springer, Dordrecht.
\bibitem[Morowitz, 1979]{morowitz1979energy}
Morowitz, H.~J. (1979).
\newblock {\em Energy flow in biology: Biological organization as a problem in thermal physics}.
\newblock Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, Conn.
\bibitem[Mossio and Bich, 2017]{mossio2017makes}
Mossio, M. and Bich, L. (2017).
\newblock What makes biological organisation teleological?
\newblock {\em Synthese}, 194(4):1089--1114.
\bibitem[Mossio et~al., 2013]{mossio2013emergence}
Mossio, M., Bich, L., and Moreno, A. (2013).
\newblock Emergence, closure and inter-level causation in biological systems.
\newblock {\em Erkenntnis}, 78(Suppl 2):153--178.
\bibitem[Mossio and Moreno, 2010]{mossio2010organisational}
Mossio, M. and Moreno, A. (2010).
\newblock Organisational closure in biological organisms.
\newblock {\em History and philosophy of the life sciences}, pages 269--288.
\bibitem[Nave, 2022]{nave2022boundaries}
Nave, K. (2022).
\newblock Boundaries and borders gone! {B}ut life goes on: {C}ommentary on {B}ruineberg et al. {T}he emperor's new {M}arkov blankets.
\newblock {\em Behavioral and Brain Sciences}, 45:e202.
\bibitem[Nave, 2025]{nave2025drive}
Nave, K. (2025).
\newblock {\em A drive to survive: The free energy principle and the meaning of life}.
\newblock MIT Press.
\bibitem[Newen et~al., 2018]{newen20184E}
Newen, A., Gallagher, S., and De~Bruin, L. (2018).
\newblock 4e cognition: Historical roots, key concepts, and central issues.
\newblock In Newen, A., Bruin, L.~D., and Gallagher, S., editors, {\em The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition}, pages 3--18. Oxford University Press.
\bibitem[Newman et~al., 2025]{newman2025agency}
Newman, S.~A., Ben{\'\i}tez, M., Bhat, R., Glimm, T., Kumar, K.~V., Nanjundiah, V., Nicholson, D.~J., and Sarkar, S. (2025).
\newblock Agency in the evolutionary transition to multicellularity.
\newblock {\em The Quarterly Review of Biology}, 100(2):83--118.
\bibitem[Nicholson, 2012]{nicholson2012concept}
Nicholson, D.~J. (2012).
\newblock The concept of mechanism in biology.
\newblock {\em Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences}, 43(1):152--163.
\bibitem[Nicholson, 2013]{nicholson2013organisms}
Nicholson, D.~J. (2013).
\newblock Organisms$\ne$ machines.
\newblock {\em Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences}, 44(4):669--678.
\bibitem[Noble, 2012]{noble2012theory}
Noble, D. (2012).
\newblock A theory of biological relativity: no privileged level of causation.
\newblock {\em Interface focus}, 2(1):55--64.
\bibitem[Noble et~al., 2019]{noble2019biological}
Noble, R., Tasaki, K., Noble, P.~J., and Noble, D. (2019).
\newblock Biological relativity requires circular causality but not symmetry of causation: so, where, what and when are the boundaries?
\newblock {\em Frontiers in physiology}, 10:827.
\bibitem[Pattee, 2021]{pattee2021symbol}
Pattee, H. (2021).
\newblock Symbol grounding precedes interpretation.
\newblock {\em Biosemiotics}, pages 1--8.
\bibitem[Pattee, 1969a]{pattee2012does}
Pattee, H.~H. (1969a).
\newblock How does a molecule become a message?
\newblock {\em Developmental Biology Supplement}, 3:1--16.
\bibitem[Pattee, 1969b]{pattee1969physical}
Pattee, H.~H. (1969b).
\newblock Physical problems of heredity and evolution.
\newblock {\em Towards a theoretical biology}, 2:268--284.
\bibitem[Pattee, 1971]{pattee1971physical}
Pattee, H.~H. (1971).
\newblock Physical theories of biological co-ordination.
\newblock {\em Quarterly Reviews of biophysics}, 4(2-3):255--276.
\bibitem[Pattee, 1972]{pattee1972nature}
Pattee, H.~H. (1972).
\newblock The nature of hierarchical controls in living matter.
\newblock In Rosen, R., editor, {\em Foundations of Mathematical Biology: Subcellular Systems}, volume~1, pages 1--22. Academic Press.
\bibitem[Pattee, 1991]{pattee1991measurement}
Pattee, H.~H. (1991).
\newblock Measurement-control heterarchical networks in living systems.
\newblock {\em International Journal Of General System}, 18(3):213--221.
\bibitem[Pattee, 1993]{pattee1993limitations}
Pattee, H.~H. (1993).
\newblock The limitations of formal models of measurement, control, and cognition.
\newblock {\em Applied mathematics and computation}, 56(2-3):111--130.
\bibitem[Pattee, 1995a]{pattee1995artificial}
Pattee, H.~H. (1995a).
\newblock Artificial life needs a real epistemology.
\newblock In {\em European Conference on Artificial Life}, pages 21--38. Springer.
\bibitem[Pattee, 1995b]{pattee2012evolving}
Pattee, H.~H. (1995b).
\newblock Evolving self-reference: matter, symbols, and semantic closure.
\newblock {\em Communication and Cognition—Artificial Intelligence}, 12:1–2.
\bibitem[Pattee, 2001]{pattee2001physics}
Pattee, H.~H. (2001).
\newblock The physics of symbols: bridging the epistemic cut.
\newblock {\em Biosystems}, 60(1-3):5--21.
\bibitem[Pattee, 2007]{pattee2007laws}
Pattee, H.~H. (2007).
\newblock Laws, constraints, and the modeling relation--history and interpretations.
\newblock {\em Chemistry \& biodiversity}, 4(10):2272--2295.
\bibitem[Pattee, 2012]{pattee2012causation}
Pattee, H.~H. (2012).
\newblock Causation, control, and the evolution of complexity.
\newblock In {\em LAWS, LANGUAGE and LIFE: Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary}, pages 261--274. Springer.
\bibitem[Pattee, 2013]{pattee2013epistemic}
Pattee, H.~H. (2013).
\newblock Epistemic, evolutionary, and physical conditions for biological information.
\newblock {\em Biosemiotics}, 6(1):9--31.
\bibitem[Pattee, 2017]{pattee2017physical}
Pattee, H.~H. (2017).
\newblock The physical basis of coding and reliability in biological evolution.
\newblock In {\em The Origin of Life}, pages 67--93. Routledge.
\bibitem[Pattee, 2019]{pattee2019simulations}
Pattee, H.~H. (2019).
\newblock Simulations, realizations, and theories of life.
\newblock In {\em Artificial life}, pages 63--77. Routledge.
\bibitem[Pattee et~al., 2012a]{pattee2012cell}
Pattee, H.~H., R.~k{a}czaszek Leonardi, J., and Pattee, H.~H. (2012a).
\newblock Cell psychology: an evolutionary approach to the symbol-matter problem.
\newblock {\em LAWS, LANGUAGE and LIFE: Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary}, pages 165--179.
\bibitem[Pattee et~al., 2012b]{pattee2012clues}
Pattee, H.~H., R{a}czaszek-Leonardi, J., and Pattee, H.~H. (2012b).
\newblock Clues from molecular symbol systems.
\newblock {\em LAWS, LANGUAGE and LIFE: Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary}, pages 155--163.
\bibitem[Pattee and Sayama, 2019]{pattee2019evolved}
Pattee, H.~H. and Sayama, H. (2019).
\newblock Evolved open-endedness, not open-ended evolution.
\newblock {\em Artificial Life}, 25(1):4--8.
\bibitem[Pezzulo and Levin, 2026]{pezzulo2026bootstrapping}
Pezzulo, G. and Levin, M. (2026).
\newblock Bootstrapping life-inspired machine intelligence: The biological route from chemistry to cognition and creativity.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08079}.
\bibitem[Pinotsis and Miller, 2025]{pinotsis2025ephaptic}
Pinotsis, D.~A. and Miller, E.~K. (2025).
\newblock Ephaptic coupling can explain variability in neural activity.
\newblock {\em bioRxiv}, pages 2025--12.
\bibitem[Polanyi, 1968]{polanyi1968life}
Polanyi, M. (1968).
\newblock Life's irreducible structure: Live mechanisms and information in dna are boundary conditions with a sequence of boundaries above them.
\newblock {\em Science}, 160(3834):1308--1312.
\bibitem[Poledna, 2026]{poledna2026towards}
Poledna, P. (2026).
\newblock {\em Towards a Logic of Life}.
\newblock PhD thesis, University of Vienna.
\bibitem[Poole et~al., 2017]{poole2017chemical}
Poole, W., Ortiz-Munoz, A., Behera, A., Jones, N.~S., Ouldridge, T.~E., Winfree, E., and Gopalkrishnan, M. (2017).
\newblock Chemical boltzmann machines.
\newblock In {\em DNA Computing and Molecular Programming: 23rd International Conference, DNA 23, Austin, TX, USA, September 24--28, 2017, Proceedings 23}, pages 210--231. Springer.
\bibitem[Potter and Mitchell, 2025]{potter2025beyond}
Potter, H.~D. and Mitchell, K.~J. (2025).
\newblock Beyond mechanism—extending our concepts of causation in neuroscience.
\newblock {\em European Journal of Neuroscience}, 61(5):e70064.
\bibitem[Ramstead et~al., 2023]{ramstead2023bayesian}
Ramstead, M.~J., Sakthivadivel, D.~A., Heins, C., Koudahl, M., Millidge, B., Da~Costa, L., Klein, B., and Friston, K.~J. (2023).
\newblock On bayesian mechanics: a physics of and by beliefs.
\newblock {\em Interface Focus}, 13(3):20220029.
\bibitem[Read and Szokolszky, 2024]{read2024animals}
Read, C. and Szokolszky, A. (2024).
\newblock What animals can do: agency, mutuality, and adaptation.
\newblock {\em Biological Theory}, 19(3):198--208.
\bibitem[Reichel, 2011]{reichel2011snakes}
Reichel, A. (2011).
\newblock Snakes all the way down: Varela's calculus for self-reference and the praxis of paradise.
\newblock {\em Systems Research and Behavioral Science}, 28(6):646--662.
\bibitem[Reid, 2023]{reid2023thoughts}
Reid, C.~R. (2023).
\newblock Thoughts from the forest floor: a review of cognition in the slime mould physarum polycephalum.
\newblock {\em Animal cognition}, 26(6):1783--1797.
\bibitem[Robbins and Aydede, 2012]{Robbins2012Primer}
Robbins, P. and Aydede, M. (2012).
\newblock A short primer on situated cognition.
\newblock Preprint published online by Cambridge University Press.
\bibitem[Rodriguez-Vergara and Husbands, 2026]{rodriguez2026every}
Rodriguez-Vergara, F. and Husbands, P. (2026).
\newblock Is every cognitive phenomenon computable?
\newblock {\em Mathematics}, 14(3):535.
\bibitem[Roosth, 2019]{roosth2019synthetic}
Roosth, S. (2019).
\newblock {\em Synthetic: How life got made}.
\newblock University of Chicago Press.
\bibitem[Rosen, 1958a]{rosen1958relational}
Rosen, R. (1958a).
\newblock A relational theory of biological systems.
\newblock {\em The bulletin of mathematical biophysics}, 20:245--260.
\bibitem[Rosen, 1958b]{rosen1958representation}
Rosen, R. (1958b).
\newblock The representation of biological systems from the standpoint of the theory of categories.
\newblock {\em The bulletin of mathematical biophysics}, 20:317--341.
\bibitem[Rosen, 1971]{rosen1971some}
Rosen, R. (1971).
\newblock Some realizations of (m, r)-systems and their interpretation.
\newblock {\em The bulletin of mathematical biophysics}, 33:303--319.
\bibitem[Rosen, 1978]{rosen1978anticipatory}
Rosen, R. (1978).
\newblock On anticipatory systems: I. when can a system contain a predictive model of another?
\newblock {\em Journal of Social and Biological Structures}, 1(2):155--162.
\bibitem[Rosen, 1986]{rosen1986causal}
Rosen, R. (1986).
\newblock Causal structures in brains and machines.
\newblock {\em International Journal Of General System}, 12(2):107--126.
\bibitem[Rosen, 1991]{rosen1991life}
Rosen, R. (1991).
\newblock {\em Life itself: a comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin, and fabrication of life}.
\newblock Columbia University Press.
\bibitem[Rosen, 2011]{rosen2011anticipatory}
Rosen, R. (2011).
\newblock Anticipatory systems.
\newblock In {\em Anticipatory systems: Philosophical, mathematical, and methodological foundations}, pages 313--370. Springer.
\bibitem[Rosenblueth et~al., 1943]{rosenblueth1943behavior}
Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., and Bigelow, J. (1943).
\newblock Behavior, purpose and teleology.
\newblock {\em Philosophy of science}, 10(1):18--24.
\bibitem[Ross and Bassett, 2024]{ross2024causation}
Ross, L.~N. and Bassett, D.~S. (2024).
\newblock Causation in neuroscience: keeping mechanism meaningful.
\newblock {\em Nature Reviews Neuroscience}, 25(2):81--90.
\bibitem[Rosslenbroich et~al., 2024]{rosslenbroich2024agency}
Rosslenbroich, B., K{\"u}mmell, S., and Bemb{\'e}, B. (2024).
\newblock Agency as an inherent property of living organisms.
\newblock {\em Biological Theory}, 19(4):224--236.
\bibitem[Ruse, 2005]{ruse2005darwinism}
Ruse, M. (2005).
\newblock Darwinism and mechanism: metaphor in science.
\newblock {\em Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences}, 36(2):285--302.
\bibitem[Salge and Polani, 2017]{salge2017empowerment}
Salge, C. and Polani, D. (2017).
\newblock Empowerment as replacement for the three laws of robotics.
\newblock {\em Frontiers in Robotics and AI}, 4:260425.
\bibitem[Santos, 2023]{santos2023emergence}
Santos, G. (2023).
\newblock Emergence, downward causation, and interlevel integrative explanations.
\newblock In {\em New Mechanism: Explanation, Emergence and Reduction}, pages 235--265. Springer.
\bibitem[Seifert et~al., 2023]{seifert2023reinforcement}
Seifert, G., Sealander, A., Marzen, S., and Levin, M. (2023).
\newblock From reinforcement learning to agency: Frameworks for understanding basal cognition.
\newblock {\em Biosystems}, page 105107.
\bibitem[{\c{S}}erban, 2026]{cserban2026rethinking}
{\c{S}}erban, M. (2026).
\newblock Rethinking interlevel experiments: no remainder from evidence for causal relations.
\newblock {\em European Journal for Philosophy of Science}, 16(1):12.
\bibitem[Siddiqi et~al., 2022]{siddiqi2022causal}
Siddiqi, S.~H., Kording, K.~P., Parvizi, J., and Fox, M.~D. (2022).
\newblock Causal mapping of human brain function.
\newblock {\em Nature reviews neuroscience}, 23(6):361--375.
\bibitem[Sol{\'e} et~al., 2019]{sole2019liquid}
Sol{\'e}, R., Moses, M., and Forrest, S. (2019).
\newblock Liquid brains, solid brains.
\bibitem[Sol{\'e} and Seoane, 2022]{sole2022evolution}
Sol{\'e}, R. and Seoane, L.~F. (2022).
\newblock Evolution of brains and computers: the roads not taken.
\newblock {\em Entropy}, 24(5):665.
\bibitem[Sol{\'e} et~al., 2026]{sole2026cognition}
Sol{\'e}, R., Seoane, L.~F., Pla-Mauri, J., Bennett, M.~T., Hochberg, M.~E., and Levin, M. (2026).
\newblock Cognition spaces: natural, artificial, and hybrid.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.12837}.
\bibitem[Soria-Carrera et~al., 2026]{soria2026primitive}
Soria-Carrera, H., Kauling, L., and Boekhoven, J. (2026).
\newblock Primitive genotype-phenotype coupling in fuel-dependent synthetic cells with an autocatalyst.
\newblock {\em Chem}, 12(3).
\bibitem[Spencer, 2026]{spencer2026agency}
Spencer, R.~D. (2026).
\newblock Agency as the defining activity of life: A viability-oriented framework integrating process and scale.
\newblock {\em Biological Theory}, pages 1--12.
\bibitem[Spencer-Brown, 1969]{SpencerBrown1969Laws}
Spencer-Brown, G. (1969).
\newblock {\em Laws of Form}.
\newblock George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London.
\bibitem[Sultan et~al., 2022]{sultan2022bridging}
Sultan, S.~E., Moczek, A.~P., and Walsh, D. (2022).
\newblock Bridging the explanatory gaps: What can we learn from a biological agency perspective?
\newblock {\em BioEssays}, 44(1):2100185.
\bibitem[Thompson, 2010]{thompson2010mind}
Thompson, E. (2010).
\newblock {\em Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind}.
\newblock Harvard University Press.
\bibitem[Thompson and Varela, 2001]{thompson2001radical}
Thompson, E. and Varela, F.~J. (2001).
\newblock Radical embodiment: neural dynamics and consciousness.
\newblock {\em Trends in Cognitive Sciences}, 5(10):418--425.
\bibitem[Trappes et~al., 2022]{trappes2022individualized}
Trappes, R., Nematipour, B., Kaiser, M.~I., Krohs, U., Van~Benthem, K.~J., Ernst, U.~R., Gadau, J., Korsten, P., Kurtz, J., Schielzeth, H., et~al. (2022).
\newblock How individualized niches arise: defining mechanisms of niche construction, niche choice, and niche conformance.
\newblock {\em BioScience}, 72(6):538--548.
\bibitem[Turing, 1936]{turing1936computable}
Turing, A. (1936).
\newblock On the computable numbers with an application to the entscheidungs.
\newblock {\em problem,'Proc. London Math. Soc., Ser}, 2(42):230--265.
\bibitem[Turing, 1950]{Turing1950computing}
Turing, A.~M. (1950).
\newblock Computing machinery and intelligence.
\newblock {\em Mind}, LIX(236):433--460.
\bibitem[Varela, 1975]{varela1975calculus}
Varela, F. (1975).
\newblock A calculus for self-reference.
\newblock {\em International Journal of General System}, 2(1):5--24.
\bibitem[Varela, 1978]{varela1978being}
Varela, F.~J. (1978).
\newblock On being autonomous: The lessons of natural history for systems theory.
\newblock In {\em Applied general systems research: Recent developments and trends}, pages 77--84. Springer.
\bibitem[Varela, 1979]{Varela1979Principles}
Varela, F.~J. (1979).
\newblock {\em Principles of Biological Autonomy}.
\newblock North Holland Series in General Systems Research. North-Holland, New York.
\bibitem[Varela and Goguen, 1978]{varela1978arithmetic}
Varela, F.~J. and Goguen, J.~A. (1978).
\newblock The arithmetic of closure.
\newblock {\em Cybernetics and System}, 8(3-4):291--324.
\bibitem[Varela et~al., 1974]{VarelaEtAl1974}
Varela, F.~J., Maturana, H.~R., and Uribe., R. (1974).
\newblock Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model.
\newblock {\em BioSystems}, 5:187--196.
\bibitem[Varela et~al., 1991]{varela1991embodied}
Varela, F.~J., Thompson, E., and Rosch, E. (1991).
\newblock {\em The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience}.
\newblock MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
\bibitem[Varenne, 2013]{varenne2013mathematical}
Varenne, F. (2013).
\newblock The mathematical theory of categories in biology and the concept of natural equivalence in robert rosen.
\newblock {\em Revue d’histoire des sciences}, 66(1):167--197.
\bibitem[Vasas et~al., 2010]{vasas2010lack}
Vasas, V., Szathm{\'a}ry, E., and Santos, M. (2010).
\newblock Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks constraints metabolism-first scenarios for the origin of life.
\newblock {\em Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 107(4):1470--1475.
\bibitem[Veloz, 2021]{veloz2021goals}
Veloz, T. (2021).
\newblock Goals as emergent autopoietic processes.
\newblock {\em Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology}, 9:720652.
\bibitem[Villalobos, 2013]{villalobos2013enactive}
Villalobos, M. (2013).
\newblock Enactive cognitive science: revisionism or revolution?
\newblock {\em Adaptive Behavior}, 21(3):159--167.
\bibitem[Villalobos and Dewhurst, 2017]{villalobos2017post}
Villalobos, M. and Dewhurst, J. (2017).
\newblock Why post-cognitivism does not (necessarily) entail anti-computationalism.
\newblock {\em Adaptive Behavior}, 25(3):117--128.
\bibitem[Virenque and Mossio, 2024]{virenque2024agency}
Virenque, L. and Mossio, M. (2024).
\newblock What is agency? a view from autonomy theory.
\newblock {\em Biological Theory}, 19(1):11--15.
\bibitem[Virgo et~al., 2025]{virgo2025good}
Virgo, N., Biehl, M., Baltieri, M., and Capucci, M. (2025).
\newblock A “good regulator theorem” for embodied agents.
\newblock In {\em Artificial Life Conference Proceedings 37}, volume 2025, page~46. MIT Press.
\bibitem[von Neumann, 1966]{neumann1966theory}
von Neumann, J. (1966).
\newblock Theory of self-reproducing automata.
\newblock {\em Edited by Arthur W. Burks}.
\bibitem[Walsh, 2015]{walsh2015organisms}
Walsh, D.~M. (2015).
\newblock {\em Organisms, agency, and evolution}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press.
\bibitem[Walsh, 2018]{walsh2018towards}
Walsh, D.~M. (2018).
\newblock Objectcy and agency: Towards a methodological vitalism.
\newblock In Nicholson, D.~J. and Dupr{\'e}, J., editors, {\em Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology}, pages 167--185. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
\bibitem[Ward et~al., 2017]{ward2017introduction}
Ward, D., Silverman, D., and Villalobos, M. (2017).
\newblock Introduction: The varieties of enactivism.
\newblock {\em Topoi}, 36(3):365--375.
\bibitem[Waters, 2021]{waters2021behavior}
Waters, D. (2021).
\newblock {\em Behavior and culture in one dimension: Sequences, affordances, and the evolution of complexity}.
\newblock Routledge.
\bibitem[Waters, 2012]{waters2012neumann}
Waters, D.~P. (2012).
\newblock Von neumann’s theory of self-reproducing automata: a useful framework for biosemiotics?
\newblock {\em Biosemiotics}, 5(1):5--15.
\bibitem[Watson and Crick, 1953]{watson1953molecular}
Watson, J.~D. and Crick, F.~H. (1953).
\newblock Molecular structure of nucleic acids: a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid.
\newblock {\em Nature}, 171(4356):737--738.
\bibitem[Weber and Varela, 2002]{weber2002life}
Weber, A. and Varela, F.~J. (2002).
\newblock Life after kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality.
\newblock {\em Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences}, 1(2):97--125.
\bibitem[Weckstr{\"o}m, 2023]{weckstrom2023natural}
Weckstr{\"o}m, M.~M. (2023).
\newblock Natural law, the modeling relation, and two roots of perspectivism.
\newblock {\em Synthese}, 201(3):92.
\bibitem[Williams, 2022]{williams2022markov}
Williams, D.~J. (2022).
\newblock Markov blankets: Realism and our ontological commitments.
\newblock {\em Behavioral and Brain Sciences}, 45:e217.
\bibitem[Wilson and Prescott, 2022]{wilson2022scaffolding}
Wilson, S.~P. and Prescott, T.~J. (2022).
\newblock Scaffolding layered control architectures through constraint closure: insights into brain evolution and development.
\newblock {\em Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences}, 377(1844).
\bibitem[Wimsatt, 2007]{wimsatt2007re}
Wimsatt, W.~C. (2007).
\newblock {\em Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality}.
\newblock Harvard University Press.
\bibitem[Winning, 2020]{winning2020mechanistic}
Winning, J. (2020).
\newblock Mechanistic causation and constraints: Perspectival parts and powers, non-perspectival modal patterns.
\newblock {\em The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science}, 71(4):1385--1409.
\bibitem[Witherington, 2014]{witherington2014self}
Witherington, D.~C. (2014).
\newblock Self-organization and explanatory pluralism: Avoiding the snares of reductionism in developmental science.
\newblock {\em Research in Human Development}, 11(1):22--36.
\bibitem[Zafiris, 2012]{zafiris2012rosen}
Zafiris, E. (2012).
\newblock Rosen's modelling relations via categorical adjunctions.
\newblock {\em International Journal of General Systems}, 41(5):439--474.
\end{thebibliography}