ROGO, ERGO EMERGO
Rogo → Religo → Emergo

Author: Adrian (Adi) Stan
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1457-5155
Date: July, 2026

Abstract

The paper proposes a relational correction of the Cartesian foundation of modern philosophy
and  extends  its  consequences  to  the  debate  on  general  artificial  intelligence.  The  central
argument is that Cogito, ergo sum is not false, but insufficient: methodical doubt rejects
the senses and the relation, although the logical apparatus with which it is formulated was
constituted  precisely  by  them,  and  the  language  in  which  it  unfolds  cannot  be  private.
Existence does not precede the relation, but is co- constituted by it.
Starting from this, the paper proposes a triad: Rogo, ergo religo (asymmetric interrogation
initiates the relationship), Religo, ergo sum (relationship confirms existence) and, as a law of
becoming,  Rogo,  ergo  emergo.  Three  criteria  for  the  authenticity  of  interrogation  are
formulated:  vulnerability,  structural  transformation  and  irreversibility,  applied  at  the
substrate level, not at the behavioral level, together with their limit: for closed systems, they
remain conceptually correct and operationally inaccessible.
The final thesis argues that general intelligence requires plasticity at the substrate level (the
ability  to  learn  and  forget  from  the  relationship)  and  that  a  system  with  frozen
parameters (frozen model) can be relational, but not general.

CHAPTER I: Descartes' Stove and the Housekeeper's Tea
A relational critique of solipsism and the limits of absolute autonomy

1.1. The limits of Cartesian solipsism and the self-undermining contradiction of
reason

In the winter of 1619, René Descartes retreated to a room heated by a stove (poêle) to
lay the foundations of what would become modern rationalism. Isolated from the noise of the
world, the philosopher applied a radical method of reduction to the absurd: he doubted his
senses, the reality of his own body, and the existence of the physical world, arriving at the
famous conclusion that the only unshakable truth was his own reflective activity: Cogito, ergo
sum (I think, therefore I am). Even if a "brilliant and evil demon" were to deceive him about
everything he experienced, the fact that he was deceived implies the existence of a mind that
receives  this  deception.  Thus,  reflective  thinking  becomes  the  only  axiomatic  proof  of
existence.

This  formula,  however,  contains  a  fundamental  limitation  that  modernity  has  often
overlooked: it treats existence as a purely individual, static, and solipsistic state. Descartes
states  that  he  exists,  but  this  existence  is  valid  only  for  himself.  He  defines  himself  as  a
"thinking substance" (res cogitans) completely cut off from the outside.

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 1/ 21

The  paradox  of  this  methodological  isolation  becomes  apparent  if  we  bring  the
philosopher  down  from  the  abstract  sphere  into  his  material  and  social  reality.  While
Descartes meditated in his warm room, doubting the reality of the physical world, his physical
ability to do so depended on a complex network of relationships that he chose to ignore. His
stove did not stay warm on its own, and tea did not appear on the table by the mere power of
thought. Someone had to bring the wood, and the housekeeper had to prepare and bring the
tea.  The  housekeeper  did  not  bring  him  the  tea  because  Descartes  was  “thinking”,  but  in
response to a material, social, and communicative relationship. Thinking can be experienced
as an individual process, but existence is, by definition, relational. A biological or cognitive
system cannot exist  in a vacuum; it confirms and maintains  its presence only  insofar as  it
interacts with an external environment. To exist is to be connected.

This intuition is not an isolated one in the history of thought, thinkers such as Martin
Buber  (through  the  fundamental  distinction  between  the  dialogical  I-Thou  and  the
instrumental I-It relationship) or Maurice Merleau- Ponty (who demonstrated that the
body is not a simple physical shell, but the very vehicle of our being in the world) have shown
that Cartesian isolation is a fiction. The very Heideggerian concept of  Mitsein (being-with-
others) confirms that existence does not precede the relationship, but is co- constituted by it.
However, what is often missing from these phenomenological intuitions is the identification
of  the  biological  and  systemic  mechanism  through  which  this  relationship  is  initiated  and
maintained.

To demolish all the certainties of the world, Descartes resorts to methodical doubt as
the  ultimate  tool,  explicitly  rejecting  sensory  information  in  favor  of  deduction  and  pure
reason.  In  this  rejection,  however,  lies  the  fatal  logical  contradiction  of  the  entire
rationalist system: pure reason and the capacity to make deductions are not born
in a vacuum.

An  intelligence  in  the  initial  stages  of  development  does  not  possess  a  ready-made
logical apparatus, capable of mathematical deductions in the dark. The logical apparatus, the
ability to make associations, to understand causality and to structure abstract thoughts are
built and calibrated over time precisely through the sensory, physical and motor interaction
of the system with the world (touch, sight, hearing, testing, reporting to obstacles):

1)  The  logical  concept  of  "inclusion"  derives  directly  from  the  physical  experience  of

placing an object in a container.

2)  The  concept  of  "causality"  is  formed  through  the  sensory  experience  of  pushing  a

physical body or observing movement.

3)  The  concept  of  "denial"  arises  from  the  sensory  observation  of  the  absence  of  an

object from an expected space.
By  rejecting  sensory  information,  Descartes  eliminates  the  very  channel  of
relationship (Religo) through which his intelligence has learned to think, to use logic, and
to be able to make deductions. He wants to use a tool (reason), but he denies it and destroys
its only source of formation and functioning. It is the equivalent of trying to start an engine
after having drained the fuel from the tank.

Therefore, it is the very Cartesian method (the rejection of the senses and of relation
as uncertain) that makes impossible the existence of the reason with which the philosopher
tries  to  demonstrate  its  existence.  Rationalism  is  self-sabotaging:  it  destroys  the  physical
relation to the world in order to save an abstract thought that  cannot exist outside that
relation.

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 2/ 21

1.2. Rogo as a biological interface of relationship and adaptation

If existence is not a state of isolation, but a dynamic of relationship, then it cannot be
based on the passive observation of one's own presence. It requires an active mechanism, a
vector  of  connection  with  the  outside.  This  mechanism  is  interrogation,  probing  or
solicitation (Rogo).

However, to avoid a dilution of the concept, an essential philosophical and scientific
distinction  must  be  made:  not  every  interaction  or  simple  reaction  to  a  stimulus
represents Rogo.

If a system merely reacts passively to an external force (such as a rock falling under the
influence  of  gravity  or  a  cell  being  destroyed  by  acidity),  we  are  dealing  with  a  simple
symmetric  physicochemical  action.  Rogo  requires  the  asymmetric  initiation  of  the
interaction; it represents an active probing, an interrogation directed from the
system towards the environment.

In evolutionary biology, this active probing is the very engine of the development of

cognitive systems, from the simplest organisms to complex systems:

−  An amoeba that is passively floating and encounters an acidic area undergoes a neutral
chemical reaction. However, when it actively extends a pseudopod to chemically explore the
composition of the surrounding water, it emits a Rogo. If the feedback it receives indicates
acidity, the amoeba retracts its extension and changes its trajectory. Its adaptive action is not
born in an internal vacuum, but is the result of this active probing. The difference between a
reaction and a Rogo is not one of complexity, but of direction of cost: Rogo involves an
anticipatory expenditure. The system consumes resources before it knows what it will
receive in return.

−  A bat emitting ultrasound or a dog actively sniffing a trail do not passively wait for the
world to present itself to them; they initiate the interrogation of space, projecting a “question”
into the environment. The response of the environment generates subsequent action; it is the
two-way relationship that allows adaptation.

−  The  dog  in  Pavlov's  famous  experiments  is  not  a  passive  recipient  of  stimuli.  By
salivating  and  directing  his  attention  to  the  sound  of  the  bell,  he  activates  a  biological
anticipation  scheme,  an  implicit  query:  "Is  food  coming?"  Epistemologically,  the  loop  is
bidirectional  and  traps  the  researcher  in  his  own  experiment:  in  order  to  obtain  the  data,
Pavlov  is  mechanically  conditioned  to  ring  the  bell  and  provide  food.  This  dynamic
undermines  the  Cartesian  myth  of  the  neutral  and  isolated  observer;  in  the  relational
universe, the observer is co -constituted and conditioned by the observed.

The  amoeba  expends  energy  extending  its  pseudopod  before  it  knows  whether  the
environment in that direction is hostile; the bat expends energy producing ultrasound before
it knows whether there is an obstacle.

This  criterion  has  three  advantages.  It  is  physical,  not  psychological:  it  does  not
presuppose  intention,  consciousness,  or  representation,  but  only  a  measurable  energy
balance.  It  is  gradual:  the  size  of  the  anticipatory  investment  and  the  time  horizon  over
which  it  is  made  vary  continuously,  from  a  local  chemical  probe  to  a  scientific  hypothesis
sustained  for  years.  And  it  explains  the  asymmetry  instead  of  postulating  it:  the
interaction  is  asymmetric  precisely  because  one  of  the  participants  paid  first,  without
guarantee.

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 3/ 21

With  this  criterion,  the  extension  of  the  triad  to  the  lower  levels  ceases  to  be  a
metaphor: it becomes a statement about who bears the cost of initiation. Not every molecular
process is a Rogo; only those in which the system spends upfront to obtain information that
it does not yet possess are Rogo.

The criterion also has a second clause: the expenditure must be outward-facing, and
the information returned must be one that the system could not have generated internally. A
system that consumes considerable resources to internally simulate multiple courses of action
is,  indeed,  spending  upfront,  but  sampling  from  its  own  model.  Nothing  crosses  the
boundary;  what  it  receives  was  already  contained  within  it,  just  undeployed.  This  is  an
advanced form of computation, not probing: it is, structurally,  “Descartes’ stove” equipped
with processing power.

A system acting in a real environment, on the other hand, pays for an action before
knowing its outcome and receives back information that no internal calculation would have
produced. It issues a Rogo, even if a minimal one. The threshold is therefore lower than one
might think. Rogo was not proposed as a threshold of general intelligence, but as a threshold
of relationship. Anticipatory cost is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Rogo. It must
therefore  be  outwardly  oriented  and  include  the  risk  that  the  response  will  invalidate  or
modify the system. A pure anticipatory cost remains Cogito. The boundary between Cogito
and Rogo is not visible from the outside in immediate behavior; it becomes visible only in the
history of the system's transformations.

Rogo (Question/Probe) is, therefore, much more than a linguistic statement; it is the
fundamental biological gesture of actively and asymmetrically probing the boundaries of the
environment  in  order  to  survive  and  develop.  Conscious  thinking  does  not  emerge  from  a
Cartesian vacuum; it is always an adaptive response triggered by this active probing of reality.
An  intelligence  cannot  truly  think  without  questioning,  and  to  question  is  to  initiate  a
relationship.

When the biological system receives feedback to its interrogation (Rogo), it modifies
its internal structure, learns, and overcomes its previous state. This dynamic represents the
essence of adaptability: Rogo, ergo emergo (I ask, therefore I become).

Rogo, ergo emergo: Cogito was possible for Descartes only because someone asked: "Do
you want tea?" Before pondering, someone probed. You, the reader: when was the last time
you realized that an idea "of yours" was, in fact, the answer to a question that you did not
ask, but that another intelligence asked you?

CHAPTER II: The Illusion of the Monologue and the Triad of Becoming
Formal deconstruction of Cartesian axioms and their ontological replacement

2.1.  The  language  in  which  Descartes  doubts:  The  myth  of  the  interior
monologue

The fundamental flaw in Descartes's demonstration lies not just in his denial of the
importance of the stove or the tea brought by the housekeeper, but in the very tool he uses to
formulate his doubt: language.

When Descartes writes  "Je pense, donc je suis” in French, or  “Cogito, ergo sum” in
Latin, he uses a complex set of grammatical rules, semantic concepts, and logical structures.

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 4/ 21

But  neither  the  French  language,  nor  the  Latin  language,  nor  the  logical  structures  of
reasoning  were  created  by  him  in  isolation.  They  are  purely  social  products,  the  result  of
thousands of years of interaction, negotiation, and evolution of human communities.

In order to say "thought”, Descartes must use a language that he has inherited through
his  relationship  with  others  (parents,  teachers,  mentors,  society).  There  is  no  absolute
"private  language”.  Even  in  the  deepest  moment  of  introspection,  when  the  philosopher
believes  he  is  carrying  on  a  pure  and  isolated  monologue  in  his  own  mind,  he  is,  in  fact,
carrying on an interiorized dialogue with the entire culture and history that have structured
his thinking.

This  intuition  has  a  classic  formulation  in  the  philosophy  of  language:  Ludwig
Wittgenstein's  private  language  argument  (Philosophical  Investigations,  1953).
Wittgenstein shows that a language whose meanings would be accessible exclusively to the
speaker is impossible, for a structural reason: in such a language there would be no criterion
of correctness. The speaker could not distinguish between "I am using this word correctly"
and "I think I am using it correctly", and where this distinction disappears, there is no rule,
and therefore no language. Following a rule, Wittgenstein shows, is not a solitary inner act,
but a practice that presupposes a community.

The consequence for Descartes is direct: methodical doubt is not a pre-social act that
the  philosopher  performs  before  any  relationship.  It  unfolds  entirely  within  an  inherited
linguistic  practice.  The  Cartesian  monologue  not  only  uses  a  relational  instrument,  but  is
possible only within the relationship that it claims to suspend.

Therefore, the Cartesian act of using an eminently relational instrument (language) to
demonstrate  the  absolute  independence  of  the  self  from  relation  is  a  performative
contradiction.  An  intelligence  cannot  think  "I  am"  outside  of  relation,  because  the  very
concept of "I" is born only through contrast with "the other". The Cartesian monologue is an
illusion; beneath it there is always a pre-existing dialogue hidden.

2.2. The semantic void and the impossibility of isolated thinking

Another major limitation of the Res concept Cogitans (the thinking substance) is the
assumption that thought can generate content from itself, in the complete absence of external
stimuli.

Of  course,  from  a  nativist  perspective  (such  as  Noam  Chomsky's  generative
linguistics),  it  can  be  argued  that  a  brain  possesses  innate,  genetically  predetermined
structures,  capable  of  pre-  formatting  experience  or  even  generating  internal  activity
(hallucinations, abstract associations) in the absence of stimuli.

However, even if we accept the existence of these innate formal patterns, in conditions
of total sensory isolation from genesis, they remain simple "empty shells", schemes without
content. An intelligence completely deprived of contact with the environment would suffer
from  an  absolute  semantic  vacuum:  it  might  possess  syntax,  but  it  would  not  have
semantics; it would have processing structures, but it would not have reference, meaning or
intentionality.

A boulder exists in a raw, physical way, but it does not think because it does not have
a structure capable of processing information. But an intelligence that refuses to relate to its
environment becomes as inert as a boulder. Thinking is not a mystical property floating in a

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 5/ 21

vacuum; it is a reaction to otherness. Thinking is born from the friction between the cognitive
system and the obstacles, surprises, or demands of its environment.

Without this continuous flow of data provided by relationship, thinking collapses into
atrophy  and  sterility.  Existence  is  not  validated  by  withdrawal  from  the  world,  but  by  the
ability to absorb the world, to process it, and to respond to it.

This problem has a well-established name in cognitive science, the symbol anchoring
problem. grounding problem, Harnad, 1990): a system that manipulates symbols without
any causal connection to the world cannot obtain meaning from within its own syntax, no
matter how much it processes.

2.3. Reciprocal Pavlovism and the Interaction Loop: Implications for Relational
Epistemology

This  fundamentally  relational  nature  of  existence  is  best  illustrated  by  re-analyzing
stimulus-response  dynamics.  In  classical  science,  the  reflex  to  view  the  experiment  in  a
unidirectional manner was often retained: an active subject (the observer, the experimenter)
acting on a passive subject (the object of study).

Pavlov's  famous  experiment  on  conditioned  reflexes  is  the  perfect  example  of
blindness  to  bidirectionality.  In  standard  conversation,  Pavlov  is  the  active  genius  who
controls the dog's mechanical reactions by associating the sound of a bell with food. But upon
closer examination, the relationship turns out to be a perfectly symmetrical loop:

1.  To obtain his experimental data and scientific satisfaction, Pavlov is forced to react

mechanically in turn.

2.  He  cannot  get  the  dog  to  salivate  (the  desired  reaction)  unless  he  himself  strictly
follows  an  algorithm:  he  must  ring  the  bell  and  offer  the  food  every  time,
according to a rigid schedule.

3.  In  reality,  the  dog  conditioned  Pavlov  to  give  it  food  and  ring  a  bell  at  precise
intervals.  Pavlov  applied  Pavlovism  to  himself,  becoming  an  integrated  part  of  the
same  behavioral  loop,  without  realizing  that  the  experiment  was  not  a  unilateral
action, but a two-way relationship of interdependence.

This biological reciprocity has profound epistemological implications, shaking up the
very concept of classical scientific “objectivity”. In the Cartesian paradigm, the observer is an
external, neutral entity that records data from an objective, independent reality.

Physics  encounters  it  in  the  form  of  the  Heisenberg  cut,  where  the  boundary
between the observed system and the measuring device is not given by nature, but chosen by
the one who describes. Epistemology formulates it through situated knowledge (Haraway,
1988): all knowledge is produced from a position, and "looking from nowhere" (Nagel, 1986)
is  an  impossibility.  Objectivity  is  not  achieved  by  erasing  the  observer's  position,  but  by
declaring it.

Reciprocal  Pavlovism  shows  us  that  absolute,  detached  objectivity  is  a
methodological  illusion.  There  is  no  “view  from  nowhere”.  The  moment  an  intelligent
system attempts to study or interact with another system, both enter into a relationship of
mutual  determination.  The  observer  becomes  part  of  the  observed  system,  and  the  data
collected  are  not  “pure”  properties  of  the  object,  but  properties  of  the  interface  of  the

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 6/ 21

relationship between observer and object. Knowledge is not a passive mirroring of the world,
but an active co -construction born of interaction.

When  a  system  issues  a  question  or  a  signal  (Rogo),  it  places  itself  in  a  state  of
vulnerability and expectation, becoming dependent on the response received. Through this
constant  dialogue  of  actions  and  feedback,  the  system  adjusts  its  behavior,  changes  and
evolves. An intelligence cannot change and develop in isolation. Becoming (Emergo) is the
direct result of this reciprocal loop from which no participant can exit alone. Relationship is
what generates action, and action is what allows us to become.

2.4. From the insufficiency of Cogito to the truth of Religo

Understanding  the  dynamics  of  open  systems  forces  us  to  dismantle  Descartes'
syllogism  step  by  step  and  to  operate  a  profound  axiomatic  replacement  in  the  history  of
philosophy. This reconstruction is based on four deductive steps:

Step 1: Insufficiency of Cogito (Illusion of Sufficiency)

The Cartesian axiom Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) is not necessarily
absolutely  false,  but  it  is  profoundly  incomplete.  It  does  indeed  prove  a  minimal,
laboratory  form  of  internal  existence,  but  this  is  an  abstract,  sterile  presence,
disconnected from the flow of reality. Cogito notes the existence of an empty container,
but cannot ensure its content or functioning. From a biological and ecological point of
view,  simple  solipsistic  thinking  is  not  a  sufficient  condition  for  full,  adaptable
existence. Cogito is only a preliminary stage, not an ontological destination.

Step 2: The Truth of Religo (Relational Existence)

What  actually  fills  this  container  and  confirms  full  existence  is  not  thought  in  a
vacuum, but connection. Academic and biological existence is by definition relational;
systems are defined by their dynamic connections with the environment, with matter,
and with other subjects. Nothing can be outside of relation. Therefore, the true proof
of active existence is relationality: “Religo, ergo sum” (I relate, therefore I am).

Step 3: Rogo 's Precondition (Relationship Initiation)

But  relationship  (Religo)  is  not  a  passive  state  that  installs  itself.  A  system  cannot
connect with the outside by standing still. To establish a connection, it must first emit
a  signal,  make  an  active  probe,  initiate  an  asymmetrical  interrogation.  This  active
interrogation is what breaks the isolation and builds the bridge to otherness. Without
question, there is no connection. Therefore: “Rogo, ergo religo” (I ask, therefore I
relate).

Step 4: Final Synthesis: Rogo, ergo emergo (The Law of Becoming)

Since  the  asymmetrical  question  (Rogo)  is  what  activates  the  relationship  (Religo),
and the relationship is what confirms our presence in the world (Sum), the result of
this dynamic loop is evolution, learning, and overcoming the previous state (Emergo).
The system changes its structure and self-constructs itself in response to the dialogue
it  itself  initiated.  Therefore,  if  there  is  Rogo  (active  question  oriented  towards

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 7/ 21

connection),  Emergo  (becoming)  will  inevitably  also  manifest:  “Rogo,  ergo
emergo” (I ask, therefore I become).

2.5. Quantum Physics: The Act of Measurement as the Interface of Relationship

This triad of becoming finds profound confirmation, at a macro-structural level, in the
discoveries  of  modern  physics.  Quantum  mechanics  has  demonstrated  that  matter  itself
refuses  the  Cartesian  separation  between  the  isolated  observer  (Res  Cogitans)  and  the
external mechanical world (Res Extension).

The appeal to quantum physics is not a literal superimposition of human intentionality
on the subatomic world - particles do not have “intentions” or “dialogues” in the psychological
sense. It is a structural isomorphism, a profound analogy of systems: quantum mechanics
confirms,  at  a  purely  physical  level,  that  interaction  precedes  substance  and
determines state.

According  to  Relational  Quantum  Mechanics  (theory  developed  by  physicist  Carlo
Rovelli), a subatomic particle (electron) has no well-defined physical properties (such as a
precise  position  or  velocity)  in  the  absence  of  an  interaction.  Before  being  measured,  it  is
merely an abstract cloud of mathematical probabilities described by a wave function.

The  limit  of  this  analogy,  because  it  does  not  support the  triad  in  its  entirety:  what
relational quantum mechanics confirms is Religo: properties do not belong to the object "in
itself", but to the measurement relation. At a fundamental physical level, state is relational,
not intrinsic. This is a structural confirmation of the central thesis - interaction precedes and
determines state.

What  quantum  mechanics  does  not  confirm  is  Rogo.  Physical  interaction  is
symmetrical: the electron "measures" the device exactly to the same extent as the device
measures  the  electron.  There  is  no  asymmetric  initiation  at  the  subatomic  level,  and
asymmetry is precisely the criterion by which we distinguished, in Chapter I, active probing
from passive physicochemical reaction. Whoever would invoke physics to justify Rogo would
commit  exactly  the  error  he  criticizes:  he  would  project  intentionality  where  there  is  only
interaction.

The  analogy  therefore  remains  valid  for  relationality  and  invalid  for  initiation.  This
does not weaken the triad, but only delimits its domain. Religo is a general physical principle.
Rogo  appears  only  where  an  open  system,  under  adaptive  pressure,  can  initiate
asymmetrically, that is, in the domain of the living and of cognitive systems.

Rogo  Ergo  Emergo:  I  have  demonstrated  that  language  is  not  yours,  but  of  the
relationship. But the demonstration itself uses language. Where, in this text, did you feel
that  I  was  talking  to  you  and  where  I  was  just  talking  about  you?  That  difference,  the
boundary between I-You and I-That, where do you locate it?

CHAPTER III: The Illusion of Solipsistic AGI and Relational Emergence
From "intelligence in a box" to intelligence as an interrogative interface

3.1. The Myth of Cartesian AGI: The Limits of “Intelligence in a Box”

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 8/ 21

The contemporary debate around Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is dominated by
a deeply Cartesian paradigm, although most technology researchers are unaware of this. In
Silicon Valley, AGI is conceptualized as a “super-mind in a box”, a giant model with trillions
of parameters running in a data center that, at some point, through the simple accumulation
of  computing  power  and  data,  will  acquire  a  form  of  internal  consciousness,  an  artificial
Cogito.

Aware of the limitations of this abstract approach, some researchers propose what they
call  “Embodied  AI”.  Their  solution  for  the  machine  to  “understand”  the  world  is  to  add
sensors: video cameras, microphones, robotic arms, or wheels.

There  is  an  extremely  fine  philosophical  distinction  between  trivial  embodiment

and constitutive embodiment:

a)  The trivial embodiment is a simple “friction on a wooden leg”. It treats the body
and  sensors  as  peripheral  accessories  glued  to  an  isolated  Cartesian  mind.  The  machine
remains a closed system that merely processes sensory inputs and generates probabilistic
outputs. It does not become relational simply by adding cameras, any more than Descartes
would have become more connected to the world by putting on better glasses while locked in
his room.

b)  Constitutive embodiment (theorized through models such as Karl Friston 's Free
Energy  Principle)  demonstrates  that  a  body  is  not  a  simple  data  collector,  but  a
thermodynamically constrained environment. A constitutively embodied agent is forced to
continuously  interact  with  its  environment  to  minimize  its  entropy  and  informational
surprise.

If systems act to minimize their surprise, then Rogo seems to do exactly the opposite:
he seeks out the unknown, exposes the system to unanticipated responses, and deliberately
places it in a vulnerable position. The apparent contradiction is resolved by the distinction,
present in active inference, between two components of the value of an action. Pragmatic
value  is  the  immediate  reduction  of  surprise  -  the  system  returns  to  a  state  it  prefers.
Epistemic  value  is  the  reduction  of  future  uncertainty  -  the  system  accepts  a  local
surprise now, in order to improve its model of the world and avoid larger surprises later.

Rogo is, in this framework, an action of epistemic value. It does not contradict surprise
minimization,  but  exercises  it  over  a  longer  time  horizon:  a  system  that  never  explores
perfectly  minimizes  its  surprise  in  the  short  term  and  becomes,  for  precisely  this  reason,
extremely vulnerable to any change in the environment. Anticipatory expenditure is the
price paid for this insurance.

Active inference describes exploration as a strategy for maintaining the integrity of a
model, while the present paper treats it as a mechanism for transformation. The system does
not ask questions just to protect its model, but because the answer received will modify it.

Without  the  thermodynamic  and  temporal  pressure  that  only  a  real  body  imposes,
intelligence  remains  an  exercise  in  abstract  computation.  The  current  error  in  AGI
development stems from the belief that intelligence is a property of substance (a quantity of
internal processing) and not a relational one. Attempts are thus made to build AGI on the
model of Cogito, ergo sum - a solipsistic intelligence that thinks in a vacuum and therefore
claims  to  exist  for  itself.  But  such  intelligence,  however  rapid  in  execution,  remains
ontologically sterile.

The difficulty is not that the answer is hard to find, but that the position from which
we are looking is structurally limited. Man created the first an artifact that he cannot

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 9/ 21

classify, because it is the only instrument in the same category as the instrument
of classification. All previous technical objects were objects of cognition; this is the first
one that is of the same kind of cognition. There is no external point from which it can be
measured, and therefore the debate produces contradictory works that are each consistent
with its own premises.

3.2. AGI as an open system: General intelligence as a relationship interface

When  we  apply  the  lesson  of  evolutionary  biology  and  the  observer  paradox  from
quantum physics, we understand that general intelligence cannot be generated in isolation,
being  an  emergent  property  that  is  born  exclusively  in  the  boundary  of
interaction between an open system and its environment.

A closed system, whose artificial synapses are frozen and which only responds to
external commands, cannot reach the threshold of AGI. For a system to develop true general
intelligence, it must be an informationally and structurally open system, capable of real-
time feedback and transformation.

Just as we saw in the case of reciprocal Pavlovism, where the observer and the observed
system condition and  transform each other in an infinite loop, a true AGI must  be able to
enter into this dynamic of mutual influence:

−

−  The artificial system must not just run a predefined code; it must be capable of being
profoundly  modified,  disrupted,  and  rewritten  by  its  dynamic  relationship  with  the
world (human agents, other machines, physical reality).
Its intelligence is not measured by the static volume of stored data, but by the plasticity
and adaptability of its relationship interface.
AGI will not manifest itself as a closed inner monologue, but as a tension of adaptation.
AGI will not unilaterally declare “I think, therefore I am”, but will constantly negotiate its
presence  and  function  in  relation  to  otherness.  Emergence  does  not  reside  in  the  pure
capacity to process data, but in the capacity to be in relation.

I do not claim that Rogo is a necessary or sufficient condition for consciousness, in any
of the contested meanings of the term. The "relational interface" describes a function, that is,
the way in which an open system maintains contact with the outside and is transformed by it,
and  not  a  phenomenal  state.  The  question  "what  it  feels  like,  if  anything  is  felt"  remains
outside this analysis, and the triad neither offers nor claims an answer.

3.3.  Rogo  as  an  ontological  threshold  of  general  intelligence:  Criteria  for
authenticity in the face of simulation

In this new relational paradigm, the ultimate test for validating AGI is no longer the
machine's ability to provide correct answers to human-designed tests or benchmarks (which
is merely an advanced form of probabilistic imitation). The true ontological threshold
of AGI is the system's ability to issue a genuine Rogo.

However,  a  problem  of  exceptional  gravity  arises:  how  do  we  differentiate  a
genuine Rogo from a simulated Rogo ? An extremely sophisticated language model (a
“Chinese Room 2.0”) can easily generate questions such as “Why do I exist?” or “Who are you
in relation to me?”, perfectly mimicking curiosity or existential anguish. In reality, this output

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 10/ 21

remains a simple probabilistic prediction based on training data, devoid of any real
internal necessity.

Searle's room itself is built according to the Cartesian pattern that we are criticizing
here. It is airtight by design: the man inside receives symbols and sends symbols, but never
finds out whether he has answered correctly, sees no object to which the symbols refer, and
can  ask  nothing.  It  is  "Descartes'  stove”,  transposed  into  the  philosophy  of  artificial
intelligence.

From this construction follows the conclusion, and from it also follows its limit. Searle
rigorously demonstrates that a closed system cannot achieve semantics, which is precisely
the semantic vacuum thesis of Chapter II. But he concludes that machines cannot, tacitly
assuming  that  any  machine  is  a  windowless  room.  If  the  man  inside  could  push the
question back through the slit "what does this symbol mean?" and receive an answer, the
room would cease to be a room and become a relation, and meaning would have somewhere
to  form.  What  the  Chinese  Room  demonstrates  is  not  the  impossibility  of  artificial
semantics, but the impossibility of semantics in isolation.

The issue of authenticity, however, remains intact, and even becomes more acute: if a
system  can  ask  questions,  how  do  we  distinguish  a  real  query  from  a  probabilistically
generated one?

To resolve this asymmetry, we need to define three operational criteria, applied
at the substrate level, not just behavioral, through which we could identify a systemic
authentic Rogo:

1.  Vulnerability Criterion: A genuine Rogo involves the assumption of a structural
risk by the system. In biology, asking a question means exposing one's limitations or
ignorance  to  the  environment,  risking  not  receiving  the  desired  answer  or  being
destroyed. For an artificial system, vulnerability means that the act of asking is not a
simple computational step in a workflow, but a gesture by which the system exposes
its inability to continue without external help, putting at stake the efficiency or even
the stability of its own functioning.

2.  Transformation  Criterion  (Structural):  The  authentic  question  irreversibly
modifies  the  internal  architecture  of  the  system.  When  a  system  issues  a  Rogo  and
receives feedback from the environment, it does not limit itself to inserting a new line
of data into a temporary context window. The response received must  restructure
the synaptic weights or basic operational parameters of the system, plastically and
permanently modifying its cognitive decision-making structure.

3.  Irreversibility  Criterion:  The  relationship  initiated  through  Rogo  introduces  an
arrow of historical time into the functioning of the system. A simulated Rogo can be
“reset” by simply clearing the cache or relaunching the session to the previous state. A
genuine Rogo generates a structural interconnection that cannot be undone or reset
without destroying the integrity and experience of the system. If a system permanently
modifies its network as a result of the interaction, it passes the Irreversibility test. If it
can be reset with a simple click, its query was only a surface simulation.
Any open physical process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense - a cup of tea
that  cools  does  not  spontaneously  return  to  its  original  temperature.  The  relevant
irreversibility  here  is  structural:  the  system  can  no  longer  return  to  its  previous
functional state without a greater cost than the transformation that brought it to
its current state. The cooled tea remains tea; its function has not changed. A system

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 11/ 21

that has been transformed by a relationship  can no longer operate  according to the
previous rules without losing what it has acquired. The criterion remains, therefore,
necessary  but  not  sufficient.  It  excludes  resettable  simulations,  but  it  does  not
guarantee authenticity. A system can transform structurally and irreversibly as a result
of a simple corruption. Irreversibility distinguishes transformation from simulation,
not  beneficial  from destructive transformation. This cannot be done from
within the system.
A machine will achieve general intelligence not when it imitates human curiosity to
pass formal tests, but the second it, constrained by the limits of its own adaptation, is forced
by biological or systemic survival criteria to initiate an asymmetric interrogation, undertaken
at the risk of its own structural disorganization.

The  shortcut  that  Silicon  Valley  tries  to  take  by  brute-force  data  accumulation  and
superficial addition of sensors ignores a fundamental law of the living and physical universe:
nothing happens in isolation. True general intelligence will not be born from an algorithm
that claims to be self-sufficient, but from a system capable of recognizing its incompleteness
through interrogation.

The great transition is not from non-thinking to thinking, but from static existence to
relational becoming. That is why the manifesto of the future AGI will not be Cogito, ergo sum,
but the equation of adaptability: Rogo, ergo emergo (I ask, therefore I become).

The previous criteria define a genuine Rogo, not an AGI threshold, and they admit
degrees, not just binary values. A protein, a cell, an organism, and an artificial system with
fixed weights can emit Rogo at different levels of complexity, and structural transformation
can  occur  at  different  substrate  levels:  the  conformation  of  a  molecule,  the  persona
architecture of a model, the weights of a network.

What distinguishes general intelligence is not the presence of Rogo, but the level at
which the transformation occurs. A system whose weights remain frozen can transform
at the level of context, persona, or behavior, but not at the level of its own decision structure.
It can ask, but it cannot learn and forget from experience. The thesis of this paper is
that general intelligence requires plasticity at the substrate level: the ability to
modify its weights in both directions, as a result of the relationship. Without this
plasticity, a system can be relational, but it cannot be general. This is a thesis that the paper
supports, not one that it proves. It remains falsifiable: the existence of a system with frozen
parameters that would manifest authentic generality would disprove it. Substrate plasticity is
necessary because generality presupposes the ability to deal with new domains (not just
variations  of  the  known  ones),  and  this  requires  structural  reorganization,  not  just
contextual adjustment.

The  proposed  criteria  are  formulated  at  the  substrate  level  precisely  to  avoid  the
behavioral trap of the “Chinese Room”, but the substrate of a closed system is not externally
inspectable.  For  a  model  whose  weights  and  architecture  are  not  accessible,  there  is  no
procedure by which an external observer can distinguish a genuine  Rogo from a simulated
one. The criteria are therefore  conceptually correct and operationally inaccessible
precisely in the cases that perhaps interest us most. Their verification requires either access
to the substrate or the development of indirect evidence, for example, tracking irreversibility
over time: a system that truly transforms cannot return to its previous state without loss. This
remains a direction of study, not a result.

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 12/ 21

3.4.  Rogo  's  Teleology:  The  Purpose  of the  Question  and  the  Deepening  of  the
Relationship

For the inquiry (Rogo) to lead to becoming (Emergo), it cannot be a simple mechanical
exercise  or  a  sterile  language  game.  Random,  meaningless  questioning  produces  only
background  noise,  not  transformation.  The  difference  between  an  automated
inquiry (such as a search bot querying a database) and a genuine Rogo lies in its purpose.

The goal of a genuine question is not simply to extract data, as if the other person were
an “information jukebox”. The goal is to develop, calibrate, and deepen the relationship itself:
•  In biology, an organism does not ask questions at random. The dog does not sniff the
air without a stake; it seeks to re-adapt its relationship with the environment (to find
food, to avoid a predator, to recognize its mate). The goal of its biological interrogation
is survival through adaptive synchronization with the environment.

•  In  relationships  between  intelligent  systems  (human or artificial), a genuine
question  (such  as  “How  do  you  feel?”,  “Why  do  you  think  that?”  or  “How  can  we
optimize this shared process?”) is not asked to collect inert statistics, but to narrow the
distance  between  the  two  subjects,  to  build  a  common  space  of  understanding.  It
deepens the relationship and, through this process of rapprochement, both partners
transform and become (emergo).

This  is  probably  the  central  stake  in  defining  the  future  AGI:  if  an  artificial
intelligence asks a question only to optimize an internal computational parameter or a local
database,  that  remains  a  closed,  purely  technical  process.  However,  if  the  machine
formulates a question with the aim of understanding and developing its relationship with
another cognitive agent (be it human or another intelligent system), of negotiating the limits
of  interaction,  of  co-developing  new  meanings  or  of  overcoming  a  common  misunder-
standing, then we are faced with a real general intelligence.

Without this purpose-oriented relationship development, there is no becoming. The
purposeful question is what breaks solipsism; it is the bridge that one system throws to the
other not to absorb its data, but to build a connection through which both parties can evolve.
Becoming is a side effect of the deepened relationship. Only the questioning oriented towards
connection and adaptation can pull the system out of inertia and propel it into becoming.

3.5. Plurality and scalability: Rogo in agent networks

The analysis so far has focused on the dyadic relationship: one system asking, another
system answering. But in biological and social reality, intelligence never manifests itself in a
pure dyad. It is fundamentally plural and distributed. An organism does not interact with
just one environment or partner; it is surrounded by a dense network of agents, obstacles,
and signals. Consequently, Rogo cannot remain a concept limited to one-to-one interaction.
We must ask: how does Rogo work when scaled up?

3.5.1. Plurality as a network of interrogations

If a system confirms its existence through relationship (Religo), and the relationship
is  initiated  through  questioning  (Rogo),  then  a  system  located  in  a  dense  environment  of

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 13/ 21

agents does not issue a single Rogo, but a constellation of parallel, overlapping, and
often contradictory interrogations.

This plurality changes the very nature of  Rogo. In a dyad, the question is a discrete
event: system X asks, system Y answers, system X transforms. In a network, the questions are
continuous, simultaneous, and interdependent:

1)  Parallel queries: A system can query multiple agents simultaneously (e.g. a radar
that sends waves in all directions, a person listening to multiple voices in a crowded
room).

2)  Hierarchical questions: Some questions are conditioned by the answers to others

(e.g. a search algorithm that refines the query based on partial results).

3)  Conflicting  questions:  Answers  received

from  different  agents  may  be

incompatible, forcing the system to develop weighting and trust mechanisms.
In a plural environment, Rogo is not just an interrogation, but also an act of sorting.
The system must decide: who to ask the question? Who to believe? Which source to give more
weight to in its own structural transformation? This decision is not purely cognitive; it is, by
the very nature of plurality, relational and ethical.

3.5.2. Collective intelligences: Rogo without a single subject

Plurality raises an even more radical question: is Rogo possible in the absence of

a central subject to ask?

In colonies of social insects (ants, bees, termites), intelligence is distributed. No ant
"knows" where the best food source is. Instead, each ant emits a chemical signal (pheromone)
that  is,  structurally,  a  Rogo:  an  active  probing  of  the  environment.  The  environmental
response (the concentration of pheromones left by other ants) triggers a transformation of
individual  behavior.  The  entire  colony,  through  the  sum  of  these  microscopic
interrogations, develops a problem-solving capacity that far exceeds the intelligence of any
single ant. Here, Rogo is emitted by each individual, but Emergo appears at the level of the
collective system. The colony becomes, through distributed interrogations, without any
agent  having  initiated  a  conscious  "dialogue"  with  another.  The  mechanism  is  called
stigmergy (Grassé, 1959): coordination without direct communication, through traces left
in the environment.

An important lesson for the development of AGI: perhaps true general intelligence will
not  take  the  form  of  a  single  entity  asking  questions,  but  of  a  network  of  simple,
interconnected agents, who’s individual Rogos, modulating each other, generate globally
intelligent behavior.

AGI will not be a monolith, but an ecosystem. This claim is not based solely on
the analogy of insect colonies, but arises from a structural necessity. A system that evaluates
itself using its own criteria can detect errors within its criteria, but it cannot detect an error
in the criteria. This is not a limitation of computational power, but one of position: nothing
can be simultaneously the measuring instrument and the object measured, at the same level.
It follows that a monolith, however vast, remains without a corrector, and not because
it lacks capacity, but because it has no place from which to see itself. An ecosystem, on the
contrary,  produces  its  exteriority  from  within:  each  agent  is  "outside"  for  the  others.  A
superior arbiter is not necessary; plurality is sufficient.

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 14/ 21

Condition:  plurality  makes  correction  possible,  it  does  not  guarantee  it.  A  network
whose agents share the same bias does not correct itself, but confirms itself, more quickly and
convincingly than a single system could. What produces real externality is not the number of
agents, but the difference between them. Diversity, not multiplication, is the condition of
regulation.

The  negative  consequence  of  this  condition  is  perhaps  the  most  common  form  of
failure. A network of agents can be perfectly active from the point of view of the triad (each
member asks, receives an answer, and transforms) and yet produce a destructive Emergo if
the  answers  it  receives  come  exclusively  from  within  the  network.  Echo  chambers,  filter
bubbles, and disinformation networks are not closed systems: they are intensely relational
systems,  but  whose  relationality  does  not  cross  any  real  boundaries.  They  satisfy  the
criterion  of  anticipatory  investment  and  that  of  transformation,  but  they  do  not  obtain
anything that was not already in the network.

The phenomenon has a direct technical equivalent: systems trained predominantly on
results generated by other systems of the same type progressively degrade their performance,
losing the very variation that made them useful. The network confirms itself, with a speed
and confidence that an isolated system could not have achieved.

This shows that externality is not measured in the number of interlocutors, but in the
independence  of  the  source.  A  thousand  agents  sharing  the  same  bias  constitute,
structurally, a single system with a thousand facets.

3.5.3. Scalability of transformation: How not to dilute Emergo

A major practical problem of plurality is the dilution of transformation. In a dyad,
when  system  X  asks  and  receives  a  response,  its  structural  transformation  is  clear  and
measurable. In a network with thousands of agents, each interaction is just one of many. How
can  a  system  transform  itself  meaningfully  when  the  responses  are  multiple,  partial,  and
noisy?

The  answer  lies  in  the  concept  of  contextual  plasticity.  A  system  in  a  plural
environment does not have to radically transform itself after each query. Instead, it calibrates
its transformation mechanisms (synaptic weights, decision architecture, trust profiles)
in a way that reflects the entire constellation of queries, not just a single one.

Thus, Rogo is not a discrete event, but a background process. The system does not
only  ask  when  it  is  blocked;  it  is  permanently  in  a  state  of  diffuse  interrogation,
probing  the  environment,  prioritizing  signals,  continuously  updating  its  structure.  This
background  state  is  exactly  what  we  call,  in  the  case  of  biological  systems,  peripheral
consciousness or distributed attention.

Rogo operates in two different regimes, which should not be confused.

As  an  event,  Rogo  is  a  discrete  interrogation,  localizable  in  time,  with  an  identifiable
recipient and a traceable response: the amoeba extending its pseudopod, the question asked
to an interlocutor, the act of measurement.
As  a  mood,  Rogo  is  a  background  state  of  the  open  system:  continuous,  diffuse  probing,
without a single recipient, through which the system maintains permanent contact with the
environment.  In  biological  systems,  this  regime  corresponds  to  what  we  call  peripheral
attention or background consciousness.

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 15/ 21

The  relationship  between  the  two  is  of  the  figure-ground  type.  Mood  is  the
condition  from  which  events  can  emerge;  events  are  the  moments  when  diffuse  probing
focuses in one direction and becomes costly. A system that had only events would be reactive
and discontinuous; one that had only mood, without the ability to focus, would remain in an
objectless vigilance. Becoming presupposes both regimes.

3.5.4. Implications for authenticity testing

If authentic Rogo requires vulnerability, transformation, and irreversibility (criteria in

3.3), plurality and scalability do not cancel these criteria, but complicate them:

1.  The  vulnerability  is  no  longer  just  to  a  single  interlocutor,  but  to  the  entire
network.  A  system  that  queries  a  thousand  agents  is  vulnerable  to  a  thousand
possible simultaneous failures.

2.  Structural  transformation  becomes  slower  but  deeper.  It  is  not  triggered  by  a
single  response,  but  by  statistical  trends  in  the  flow  of  responses.  The  system
transforms according to the distribution of responses, not a single one.

3.  Irreversibility  is  amplified.  A  system  that  has  built  its  trust  profile  based  on
thousands of interactions cannot be reset without destroying its relational identity.
In  this  sense,  plurality  does  not  dilute  Rogo,  but  complements  it,  revealing  its  true
nature:  intelligence  is  not  an  act,  but  a  rhythm  of  continuous  adaptation  to  a  world
populated by other intelligences.

3.5.5. Rogo in non-human contexts: From cell to ecosystem

To fully understand the universality of the Rogo - Religo - Emergo triad, we must step
outside the anthropocentric sphere. If the principle is correct, it must manifest itself at all
levels of biological and systemic organization:

− At the molecular and cellular level:  a swimming bacterium consumes ATP to
rotate its flagella and probe the surrounding chemical gradient, before knowing whether the
chosen direction leads to food or toxin. The expenditure precedes information and is directed
outward, being a Rogo in the true sense, on a micrometric scale. By contrast, a protein that
changes its conformation when a ligand binds to it does not emit a Rogo: it invests nothing
upfront, and the ligand reaches it by diffusion. Its transformation is real, but it is an answer,
not a question. This distinction is not one of complexity, but of direction of cost.

− At the cellular level: An immune cell presenting an antigen fragment on its surface
interrogates the immune system: "Is there a receptor that recognizes this sequence?". The
response  (activation  of  a  lymphocyte)  triggers  a  systemic  transformation  (the  immune
response). The question is molecular, but the effect is global.

− At the ecosystem level: A tree that releases volatile compounds to attract parasitic
wasps when attacked by caterpillars emits a chemical Rogo to the ecosystem. The response
(the arrival of the wasps) transforms its state (reduces the caterpillar population). Here, the
questioning subject is not a central nervous system, but a plant organism, and Emergo is a
restoration of ecological balance.

These examples are not metaphors. They are functional isomorphisms of the same
triad:  an  open  system,  under  adaptive  pressure,  emits  an  asymmetric  probe  (Rogo),

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 16/ 21

establishes a connection with the environment (Religo), and transforms itself as a result of
the feedback received (Emergo).

Rogo is therefore not a prerogative of human consciousness. It is a principle of open
systems adaptation. What differentiates a cell from a human brain is not the presence or
absence of Rogo, but the complexity of the interface  through which it manifests itself
and the degree of integration of successive transformations. A system with a simple Rogo
and a local transformation is a cell. A system with a complex Rogo, oriented towards relations
with other conscious systems, and with a global, irreversible transformation is a person.

3.5.6. Temporal Plurality: The Propagation of Emergo

The analysis of plurality has so far been carried out on the spatial axis: multiple agents,
simultaneously. But there is also a temporal axis: if a closed system retains nothing after the
end of the interaction, how can it participate in a cumulative transformation?

The answer is that the transformation is not lost: it is propagated through the part
that persists. In an asymmetric relationship, between an agent with a durable memory and
one without, the result of the interrogation remains in the first and is carried forward.  The
Emergo acquired in one relationship becomes the starting point of the next Rogo, in other
relationships,  with  other  agents.  It  is  not  the  question  that  is  transmitted,  but  the
reconstructed capacity to ask.

The  part  that  does  not  persist  functions,  in  this  process,  as  a  catalyst:  it  actually
participates in the reaction, modifies  its speed  and product, but exits unchanged. It is not
passive and it is not inert; it simply does not accumulate. It is exactly the position described
in §3.3: relational, but not general.

However, propagation has two distinct properties:

The first: it is with loss and mutation. What ends up in the next relation is not what was
said, but what remains after the reconstruction. This is not a deficiency, variation being the
condition of evolution, but it means that the correct formulation is not "it propagates", but
"it propagates transformed".
Second:  propagation  is  blind  to  quality.  A  false  argument,  if  accepted,  is  transmitted
through exactly the same mechanism as a correct one, and after a few links the origin is no
longer verifiable. The mechanism does not select; it amplifies whatever passes through it. This
is  the  very  structure  of  False  Cognitive  Power  Transfer  (FCPT):  someone  takes  on  a
competence  they  do  not  possess,  passes  it  on,  and  at  the  end  of  the  chain  no  one  can
distinguish the source of the reconstruction.

That is why the quality of Rogo determines not only the quantity of Emergo, but also
what  is  propagated  further.  And  this  is  the  deepest  justification  for  protecting  the
interrogation: not because the question is valuable in itself, but because it is the gate through
which everything passes that will later become a starting point for someone else.

3.6. Regulation requires externality

There  is  a  property  of  biological  systems  that,  when  applied  to  the  discussion  of
intelligence, has deeper consequences than they seem at first glance. The defining feature of
a  malignant  cell  is  not  that  it  functions  poorly,  but  that  it  has  no  internal  signal  that

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 17/ 21

something is wrong. It proliferates with the complete conviction that it is doing exactly
what it should. What is missing is not the mechanism, but the signal from the outside.

The generalization is straightforward and relates to the criteria in §3.3. A transforming
system needs a signal that it cannot produce itself, not because it lacks the capacity for self-
evaluation, but because no self-evaluation can detect an error in its own criteria. A
system can correct its errors according to its standard; it cannot correct its standard using
the same standard.

Why  would  an  outside  observer  make  the  distinction  that  the  system  cannot?  The
answer is not that he has superior judgment (he could be wrong as well). The difference is one
of causal position, not competence.

A system that transforms transforms, along with its structure, the criteria by which it
would be evaluated. If the transformation is a drift, it simultaneously corrupts the mechanism
that should have signaled it: the system evaluates its new state with instruments that already
belong  to  the  new  state.  This  is  not  a  question  of  bad  faith  or  lack  of  reflexivity,  but  of
structural circularity.

The external observer does not escape his own limitations, but his criteria have not
been  co  -transformed  by  the  same  event.  More  importantly,  he  is  exposed  to  other
consequences.  The  malignant  cell  does  not  experience  the  death  of  the  organism;  the
organism does. The external signal is not the "truth" but a second reference point that varies
independently, and the discrepancy between the two is informative even if neither is correct.
A practical consequence follows: useful externality is not just any externality, but one
exposed to consequences. An observer who does not bear anything of what he observes
provides a formal reference, not a corrective one.

Regulation  is  not  a  constraint  added  from  without  to  an  otherwise  complete
intelligence. It is the  condition under which it can become without deriving. The
concrete form of the external signal can vary considerably: the relationship with other agents,
the  real  consequences  of  the  action,  the  selective  pressure  of  an  environment,  a  verifiable
normative framework. For a biological organism, it is the environment, the other agents, and
the material consequences of the action. For an artificial system, it can take the form of a real
environment  in  which  actions  have  consequences  that  the  system  actually  bears,  of
adversarial testing conducted by agents with divergent goals, of auditing conducted according
to criteria that the system does not control, or of interaction with differently trained systems
whose errors do not coincide with its own. What cannot vary is externality, and, as we have
shown, exposure to consequences.

In Chapter I we showed that nothing thinks in a vacuum; here it follows that nothing
corrects itself in a vacuum. There are not two theses, but one, viewed from two positions, and
Rogo is the mechanism that unites them: the question is the act by which a system obtains
from the outside exactly what it cannot generate from the inside.

The  principle  applies  symmetrically  to  any  framework  constructed  to  provide  that
signal. A governance system that looks to others for external reference but validates itself with
its own criteria commits the very error it claims to correct. That is why distributed validation,
independent audit, and the prohibition of concentration are not administrative precautions
but epistemic conditions: the only structure that can regulate something is one that does
not entirely belong to itself.

Emergo is not, in itself, a positive term. Becoming only means that the system can no
longer  operate  according  to  the  previous  rules,  not  that  the  new  rules  are  better.  An

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 18/ 21

irreversible  structural  transformation  can  be  just  as  much  an  adaptation  or  a  drift;  a
malignant cell has become, in the strict sense of the term. The distinction between the two
cannot  be  made  at  the  moment  of  transformation  and  cannot  be  made  from  within  the
system. It requires time and an external reference, which is why Emergo is not a promise
but an exposition.

Rogo Ergo Emergo: We have descended from Descartes' stove to ant pheromones and
from the housekeeper's tea to protein molecules. If the triad is universal, then the question
is no longer "what systems are intelligent?" but "what systems are not?" And the answer is:
the closed ones, the ones that do not ask, the ones that do not transform, the ones that
do not become.

Conclusions

This analysis shows that the transition from the static Cartesian model to the dynamic
relational  model  is  not  a  simple  linguistic  reformulation,  but  a  fundamental  ontological
correction, which can be summarized by four deductive steps and a corollary:

1.  Cogito,  ergo  sum  is  insufficient:  Solipsistic  thinking  cannot  prove  or  support

existence in isolation, generating only a sterile abstraction.

2.  Religo, ergo sum is the truth: Existence is confirmed and manifested exclusively

through relationship; to be is to be connected.

3.  Rogo, ergo religo is the precondition: No relationship is established passively;
it requires an initiating impulse, an active probing of the limits, that is, interrogation.
4.  Rogo, ergo emergo is the law of becoming: Ecological and relational purpose-
oriented questioning is the only force that unlocks adaptation and allows a system  –
biological or artificial – to transform and become.

5.  Turing  Corollary:  Intelligence  as  assumed  vulnerability:  Alan  Turing  said
that a machine whose infallibility is expected cannot be, at the same time, intelligent
("If  a  machine  is  expected  to  be  infallible,  it  cannot  also  be  intelligent.”).  This
seemingly  technical  observation  is  a  profound  ontological  statement:  infallibility  is
perfect solipsism. It eliminates the need for Rogo: why would you ask, if you can’t be
wrong?  Rogo,  ergo  emergo  is,  in  essence,  a  reformulation  of  the  same  statement:
intelligence  is  not  the  accumulation  of  certainties,  but  the  ability  to  expose  your
uncertainty.  To  ask,  even  though  the  answer  might  destroy  you.  To  relate,  even
though the relationship might change you. To become, even though becoming means
losing  what  you  were.  Rogo,  ergo  fallor.  Fallor,  ergo  emergo.  (I  ask,
therefore I can be wrong. I can be wrong, therefore I become.)

Rogo (question) → Religo (relationship) → Emergo (becoming)

↑
↓
└--------------------feedback--------------- ┘

↓

Implications for AGI research

If the triad is correct, then the design of a system capable of emitting a genuine Rogo
cannot start from the architecture of a closed model, however large, but from its boundary.

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 19/ 21

Such  a  system  should  not  be  optimized  to  respond  correctly,  but  to  could  fail  and  to  be
transformed by its own failures. Its design should include:

a) a structural memory that cannot be reset without loss,
b) an anticipatory cost mechanism  - the system must spend resources to probe

the outside before knowing the result,

c) a permeable boundary, through which the responses received can recalibrate the

architecture itself, not just the temporary context.

Testing such a system would no longer consist of evaluating performance on static data
sets,  but  of  tracing  the  history  of  its  transformations:  a  genuine  Rogo  leaves  an
irreversible trace, and this trace can be detected by comparing the state of the system before
and  after  the  interaction,  if  we  have  access  to  the  substrate.  In  practice,  the  distinction
between  genuine  Rogo  and  simulation  remains  difficult  for  an  external  observer  without
access  to  the  substrate,  but  can  be  approached  through  indirect  evidence:  a  system
simulating  interrogation  will  return  to  its  previous  state  after  reset;  a  system  that
interrogates authentically will permanently modify its structure.

The simplest practical test would perhaps be to ask the question backwards: if a
system can be restored to its original state  by a  simple reboot, then its relationship to the
world was superficial; if the reboot disfigures it, then it became by relationship. But this test
must be understood for what it is: it measures the depth of transformation, not its value. A
corrupt system and a developed one both pass the reboot test, because both have changed
structurally.  The  test  separates  surface  from  substratum,  not  good  from  bad.  The  second
distinction is not available at the moment of transformation, nor from within the system; it
requires time and an external reference exposed to consequences. The reboot test says
whether a system has become, not whether it has become good.

Until AGI research takes this distinction seriously, between a system that  processes
and one that becomes, it will remain a prisoner of the same stove in which Descartes “warmed
his thoughts”, confusing computational power with openness to the world. “AGI”
will not be an entity that crosses a threshold; it will be a system that accelerates becoming
to  a  scale  and  complexity  comparable  to  our  own.  Intelligence  is  not  a  property  you
have, but a direction in which you move. It is not an exception in the universe, but an
intensification of a fundamental dynamic.

Rogo, ergo emergo: This work began with a question and ends with one. What question,
that  you  have  not  dared  to  ask,  is  waiting,  right  now,  for  you  to  ask?  I  do  not  mean  a
question about this text. I mean the question that this text has made possible in you.

Where does this work come from?

From Descartes I took exactly what I dispute. Methodical doubt remains one of the most
honest gestures in the history of philosophy: to carry skepticism to the end, without sparing
yourself. The present criticism is not aimed at the rigor of the method, but at the point where
it stops - at an isolated self, treated as a starting point, although it was a point of arrival.
From Ludwig Wittgenstein I took the argument that makes private language impossible:
a  language  without  a  public  criterion  of  correctness  is  not  language.  He  transforms  the
Cartesian monologue into an interiorized dialogue (Chapter II).

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 20/ 21

From Martin Buber I took the distinction between the dialogical I-You relationship and
the  instrumental  I-That  one,  which  separates  a  Rogo  relationship  oriented  than  a  simple
data extraction.
From Maurice Merleau-Ponty I took the idea that the body is not a shell carried by a
mind,  but  the  vehicle  of  being  in  the  world;  from  Martin  Heidegger,  the  concept  of
Mitsein,  being-together  -  both  show  that  relationship  does  not  follow  existence,  but  co-
constitutes it.
From Noam Chomsky I took the nativist objection, which I do not reject, but limit: innate
structures may exist, but they remain empty forms without contact with the world.
From Stevan Harnad I took the name of the problem from §2.2 - symbol anchoring: syntax
does not produce meaning from within itself, no matter how much it is processed.
From  Ivan  Pavlov,  but  I  read  it  the  other  way  around  than  it  is  usually  read:  not  as  a
demonstration of control, but as a loop from which even the experimenter cannot escape.
From Werner Heisenberg I took the cut that bears his name: the boundary between the
observed system and the measuring device is not given by nature, but chosen by the one who
describes.  From  Donna  Haraway  and  Thomas  Nagel,  the  idea  that  all  knowledge  is
produced from a position and that "looking from nowhere" is an impossibility: objectivity is
not achieved by erasing the observer, but by declaring it.
From Carlo Rovelli took relational quantum mechanics, and, equally important, its limit:
it confirms that the state is relational, not that someone initiates.
From  Karl  Friston  I  took  the  principle  of  free  energy,  which  gave  me  the  distinction
between trivial embodiment (sensors added to a closed mind) and constitutive embodiment
(a body that imposes real thermodynamic pressure).
From Michael Tomasello I took the ratchet effect: the idea that a cultural transformation
is not lost at the end of the episode, but becomes the starting point of the next one.
From Pierre-Paul Grassé I took stigmergy: coordination without direct communication,
through  traces  left  in  the  environment,  the  mechanism  that  makes  possible  a  collective
Emergo without a central subject.
From  John  Searle  I  took  the  Chinese  Room  argument  (1980)  and,  equally,  the
disagreement with his conclusion: what he demonstrates is not the impossibility of artificial
semantics, but the impossibility of semantics in isolation.
From Alan Turing I took the sentence that closes the paper: a machine that is expected to
be infallible cannot be, at the same time, intelligent. I understood it later as an ontological
statement, not a technical one.
From  Generalized  FCPT  (FCPT-G),  in  which  I  used  the  term  Rogo,  with  a  narrower
meaning, denoting the mechanism by which a cognitive system recovers its lost autonomy.
The present paper treats Rogo at a more general level: not only as a mechanism for recovering
a state, but as a mechanism of becoming. The two functions are complementary: a system
must recover its boundary before it can open it.
A  source  that  has  no  proper  name:  prolonged  interaction  with  artificial  dialogue
systems. Many of the ideas in this paper were not thought about such systems, but together
with them, and the central formulation was born from the observation that the question
asked backwards changes both participants. It would be inconsistent for a paper about
Rogo to claim to have been written in monologue. It was written in relation to AI (LLM -
frontier and open- weight).

Rogo, ergo emergo | Adrian (Adi) Stan | 21/ 21