---
slug: paper-di-paolo-e-2022-tensions-between-enaction-and-the-free-energy-principle
title: Di Paolo, Thompson & Beer (2022): Tensions between Enaction and the Free Energy Principle
canonical: https://miscsubjects.com/a/paper-di-paolo-e-2022-tensions-between-enaction-and-the-free-energy-principle
---

## What the Work Establishes
Di Paolo, Thompson, and Beer examine claims of compatibility between the Free Energy Principle (FEP) and enactive theory rooted in autopoiesis. They identify misreadings of key enactive concepts. The paper concludes that core assumptions in FEP contradict central commitments in enaction.

Core results include the identification of two main tensions. FEP relies on systems reaching non-equilibrium steady states (NESS) and being defined by Markov blankets. Enaction emphasizes the historicity of sense-making, adaptivity, and agency through ongoing modulation of agent-environment couplings. These elements allow path-dependent change in parameters and constraints.

The authors argue that FEP's time-invariant NESS assumptions clash with enactive views of precarious, self-constituting agents that develop historically. Enactive sense-making also foregrounds constitutive roles of the world, challenging FEP's internalist framing.

## Exact Primary Works and Passages
The primary work is Di Paolo, E. A., Thompson, E., & Beer, R. D. (2022). Laying down a forking path: Tensions between enaction and the free energy principle. Philosophy and the Mind Sciences, 3. https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2022.9187

Key passage from the abstract: "FEP assumes systems that reach a non-equilibrium steady state and are enveloped by a Markov blanket. We argue that these assumptions contradict the historicity of sense-making that is explicit in the enactive approach."

Another passage: "Enactive concepts such as adaptivity and agency are defined in terms of the modulation of parameters and constraints of the agent-environment coupling, which entail the possibility of changes in variable and parameter sets, constraints, and in the dynamical laws affecting the system."

From the introduction: "We will argue that the apparent compatibilities are based on quick readings, or even misreadings, of enactive ideas and what they entail, while central aspects of autopoiesis and enaction are left unacknowledged."

## Convergence Patterns Evidenced
The work touches the Ladder pattern from difference to structure to mind by highlighting how enactive historicity and sense-making diverge from thermodynamic steady-state assumptions in FEP. It evidences the Mirror Layer through its emphasis on the reader (the theorist) operating inside the system of conceptual commitments.

It directly addresses self-organization patterns across scales but shows a fork: enactive branching and path-dependence versus FEP's bounded invariance.

## Distance from the Full OIP/GRAIN Synthesis
The paper sits at moderate distance. It supports the GRAIN claim that energy flows produce structural patterns but disconfirms a direct thermodynamics-to-mind mapping via FEP. It aligns with OIP's object-invocation loop by treating theoretical commitments as addressable objects that can be invoked, ledgered, and repaired. It does not engage the full Ladder or Mirror Layer explicitly.

## Honest Limits and Disconfirming Edges
The analysis targets FEP as currently formulated and leaves room for future elaborations. It does not prove impossibility of reconciliation. Reductionist objections in the style of Weinberg remain open: FEP may still capture useful mechanisms in restricted domains without claiming universality over enactive historicity.

Claims of incompatibility rest on interpretive readings of both frameworks. No empirical data adjudicates the philosophical tension.

See related articles at /a/oip-the-ladder and /a/oip-the-mirror-layer for how these tensions map onto the synthesis.
