#michael levin

Dr. Michael Levin (Levin Lab, Tufts University) has identified an overlooked phenomenon in biology and complex systems science, and has been publicly discussing it on podcasts, blogposts and in papers. It is based on the observation that evolution, development, and cognition do not construct complex organization from scratch, but repeatedly discover and instantiate structured "goal-bearing" patterns that exist in a background space of abstract forms. This space is not reducible to local microphysical interactions, and we lack concise terminology for the emergent entities of this space. Dr. Levin frequently analogizes to "Platonic Forms", yet that concept implies unattainable perfection. He sometimes uses the term "latent space", but that term is laden with unhelpful machine learning connotations. Finally, he sometimes invokes the term "attractor", but that term seems too closely related to simple dynamical models, and doesn't adequately pay homage to the rich underlying structure that is being conjured.

If Dr. Levin is right, that diverse systems tap into the same abstract goal-directed patterns across substrates, it would be helpful to have language that distinguishes this concept, and separates the pattern itself from its concrete realization. To this end, I propose two new terms: "teleoform" for the abstract, substrate-independent, goal-bearing pattern, and "attractoid" for its specific dynamical instantiation within a given rule set or material. A teleoform refers to a preferred outcome or organizational tendency, and is described in terms of what a system is maintaining or pursuing. An attractoid is the basin-like structure in a system's state space that expresses this pattern under particular dynamics. Different substrates can host different attractoids of one teleoform. Some examples will elucidate.

Consider the humble sphere. The sphere, in this case, is the "teleoform". Many substrates support the formation and maintenance of spheres: proto-planets accreting into spherical worlds under gravity, the lipid bilayer membrane of a bacteria pulling itself into a sphere under surface tension and osmotic pressure, etc. The teleoform is the sphere, and an instance of it, a bacterial membrane, is a specific attractoid. The attractoid maintains itself even under perturbation. Nudge it, and it will respond by returning to the shape it "wants" to be.

A sphere is a static teleoform, but things get more interesting with dynamic examples. Consider a persistent, coherent, directionally moving pattern with minimal autonomy. One might call such a dynamic pattern a "drifter". As a teleoform (in the proposed terminology), this drifter pattern exists independently of any substrate. In Conway's Game of Life, the classic 5-cell glider is an attractoid of the drifter teleoform. In the Lenia system, amoeba-like motile patterns are analogous attractoids, realized in a richer and continuous substrate. The underlying concept is the same, but the specific implementations differ.

Since biological and cognitive systems seem to regularly leverage such goal-bearing forms, having terms for them assists communication. It lets us say that there is a certain "ideal" form or pattern (teleoform), and multiple very different systems may instantiate it via different mechanisms (attractoids). I.e., shifting the substrate changes which attractoids are possible without altering the teleoform being instantiated. Evolutionary transitions such as multicellularity can then be seen as the discovery of a new class of teleoforms that are potentiated to later diversify into many attractoids (example).

Whether the terminology proposed herein will be adopted is uncertain, but the conceptual need is clear: we require more precise language for goal-directed patterns that sit between abstract mathematics and concrete mechanisms. The Platonic ideal is perhaps a bit too ideal for the complex reality we occupy.

--------------

Teleoform:

From "telos" (Greek: "end," "aim," "purpose") + "form" (Latin: "shape," "structure"). Together: a purpose-bearing or goal-directed form.

Attractoid:

I’m grateful to Tevin Naidu for getting Deacon and Levin together. They only had 90 minutes but still managed to cover a lot of territory, including where they overlap and where some tensions may exist. I first met Deacon back in 2011 during a lecture he gave on his then new book Incomplete Nature. Regular readers may not be surprised to learn that I asked him about Whitehead’s eternal…

Conversation of Michael Levin with Iain McGilchrist #2

 Mar 4, 2025