The polyvagal theory is dead - and HRV isn't a simple indicator of arousal

I was recently struck by Baxter's Substack post (its title copied to be the title of this MindBlog post), which noted work critical of Porges' Polyvagal  theory (or PVT) published iin the journal Clinical Neuropsychiatry, because it calls into question one idea commonly derived from this theory that I have accepted (and repeated in several MindBlog posts): that heart rate variability can be taken as a simple indicator of calm (higher HRV and parasympathetic nervous activity) versus arousal (lower HRV and sympathetic nervous system activity).  A number of bio-monitors such as the Apple Watch and the Oura Ring report ongoing HRV measurements.  Here is a clip from her article, and then the abstract of the multi-author paper she references.

Psychological safety, social engagement, co-regulation, emotional freezing, dissociation — these are real phenomena, supported by decades of research that predate PVT. They come from attachment theory, trauma research, and somatic practices. The (critical paper’s authors explicitly state that body-mind therapeutic methods “may confer benefits on their own.”

So the work stands.

What doesn’t is the specific neuroanatomical story Porges constructed to explain these states, i.e. what drives them. This is the now-familiar three-tier hierarchy: dorsal vagal shutdown, ventral vagal social engagement, sympathetic activation.

Porges got the clinical observations right—or rather, he built upon clinical observations that were already well-established. But the mechanism is wrong.

Concerningly, Porges continued to assert that mechanism for thirty years, even as the evidence mounted against it, and apparently misrepresenting and distorting the work of other scientists to support his claims. Rather than engage with criticism of his theory, Porges ignored the overwhelming scientific consensus and instead promoted this inaccurate framework as sound, misleading practitioners and clients alike.

There is good news in all this mess—for clinicians at least. What you observe in your clients is real. Hyper-arousal is real. The need for safety and co-regulation is real. People really do dissociate, numb, and freeze when overwhelmed. Your interventions still work. They just don’t work for the reasons PVT said they did.

 *********

Here is the Grossman (+38 co-authors) summary:

This article specifically appraises--based upon the current state of knowledge of autonomic function and vertebrate evolution--several major elements of the PVT, as described in Porges (2025a) and elsewhere. These include: 1) the validity of PVT assumptions that respiratory sinus arrhythmia is a direct measure of the extent of central vagal drive to the heart; 2) PVT characterizations regarding the neuroanatomy and functions of two major brainstem vagal nuclei, the ventrally situated Nucleus Ambiguus and the Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the vagus nerve; 3) PVT assertions regarding the evolution of the vagus nerve; 4) PVT claims about the specificity of mammalian social behavior in relation to nonmammalian vertebrates, and 5) PVT interpretations of earlier seminal physiological literature. All co-authors agree that major tenets of the PVT are not supported by past or current knowledge and, in several instances, are inconsistent with the broader evidence base. Since the topics addressed constitute fundamental premises of the PVT, we conclude that the PVT is untenable, because it is not defensible based on existing neurophysiological and evolutionary evidence. The psychological elements composing the superstructure of the PVT are primarily derived from earlier psychological literature and are neither clarified nor strengthened by PVT constructs that lack evidence. This article does not intend to address alternative explanations about relations between vagal function and psychological processes, although such explanations do exist. 

The text of this article is mind-numbingly detailed and complex, as is a rebuttal of the critique by Porges in the same issue of Clinical Neuropsychiatry.   

 

The nature of intelligence and selves.

I want to pass on the result of my extracting what I felt to be crucial chunks of text from Chapters 5 through 9 of Agüera y Arcas’s "What is Intelligence" which can be found at https://whatisintelligence.antikythera.org/. I found myself unable to hold and summarize the rich array of ideas in these clips of text in my attentional space, so I asked Anthropic Claude, ChatGPT 4.2, and Google gemini to condense and assemble the main points and take home messages from the clips into a narrative roughly two pages long.  The Claude result astounded me.  Here it is:

What Intelligence Is: A Synthesis of Agüera y Arcas

Reality, Models, and the Limits of "Illusion"

A useful place to begin is with the claim, made by philosophers like Dennett, Harris, and Sapolsky, that consciousness, the self, and free will are illusions — polite fictions produced by inexorable physical processes. Agüera y Arcas pushes back, not by defending dualism, but by challenging the word "illusion" itself. We don't call tables and chairs illusory simply because they're made of atoms. A better framework, borrowed from physics, holds that "reality" is our name for a model with good predictive power. No single model covers everything; general relativity doesn't tell you whether your aunt will like your cake. What matters about a model is whether it agrees with observations, makes testable predictions, and serves a useful function within its domain.

Newtonian mechanics isn't an illusion just because general relativity supersedes it — relativity explains when and why the classical approximation holds. The same logic applies to our folk psychology of selves, intentions, and choices. Theory of mind — our intuitive model of other minds — is the "Newtonian mechanics" of social life: powerful, indispensable for everyday prediction, and philosophically incomplete. The task isn't to discard it but to find the more general theory that explains where it works and where it breaks down.

Free Will as a Real Computational Achievement

That more general theory reconceives free will not as a supernatural power nor as a mere illusion, but as a genuine computational process built from four components working together. First, theory of mind applied reflexively: we can model ourselves the way we model others, imagining what our future self will experience, want, and do — which is what makes planning possible at all. Second, internal randomness: to mentally simulate alternative futures, a mind must be able to "draw random numbers," wandering prospectively through possibilities the way daydreaming does, though more directed. Third, dynamical instability (the butterfly effect in neural circuitry): this allows the faintest internal signal — "imagine doing X" — to tip behavior one way or another, making self-directed choice possible. Fourth, selection: guided by theory of mind, we prune the space of imagined futures, favoring some and discarding others, much as AlphaGo's value network prunes its search tree.

Deliberate decisions result from extended exploration before commitment; snap decisions keep multiple paths open until the last moment. In either case, if a modeled self has genuinely sampled alternatives and chosen among them, something meaningful called free will has occurred — with no dualism required. The quantum indeterminacy of the physical world, far from undermining this picture, actually supports it: the future is genuinely open, counterfactuals are real, and choice is underwritten by that openness.

Consciousness as Social Self-Modeling

Consciousness emerges naturally from the same machinery. Because social animals model each other, and because those others are modeling them back, at some point the modeling turns reflexive: you model yourself as a being that others model. Neuroscientist Michael Graziano's Attention Schema Theory adds a further layer — consciousness is what arises when a system models its own attention. Agüera y Arcas endorses this view while again resisting the word "illusion": attention is real computation, and modeling it produces a real entity, a "who," not a fiction. The vertiginous "strange loop" that Hofstadter describes — the self seeing itself seeing itself — is the phenomenological signature of this recursive social modeling.

Crucially, the category of "who" is not fixed or universal. The history of personhood — from the Declaration of Independence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — shows that which entities are granted moral standing has changed dramatically and will continue to change. There is no God's-eye view from which to declare the question permanently settled.

Intelligence: Predictive, Social, Multifractal, Symbiotic

Drawing these threads together, Agüera y Arcas offers a unified account of intelligence: intelligence is the ability to model, predict, and influence one's future; it can evolve in relation to other intelligences to create a larger symbiotic intelligence. Several properties follow from this definition.

Intelligence is predictive at every scale — from bacteria anticipating chemical gradients to cortical circuits implementing predictive sequence modeling. It is social because much of an agent's environment consists of other predictors, making theory of mind an almost inevitable evolutionary development. It is multifractal — intelligences are built from smaller intelligences, with "selves" defined by the dynamic relationships among their parts rather than by any homunculus. It is diverse, because the parts must differ from one another to provide mutual benefit; specialization arises naturally from differences in connectivity. And it is symbiotic: when the dynamic stabilities of multiple intelligences become correlated, they find themselves "in the same boat" and learn to cooperate, producing larger emergent intelligences — from mitochondria to beehives to human cultures.

Language, LLMs, and the Social Brain

Language fits cleanly into this framework. Its primary function is not grammar or syntax but leveling up theory of mind — allowing social entities to share mental states through a mutually recognizable code. Because human language is rich enough to represent everything in our umwelt, and because it functions as a general-purpose social motor output (requesting anything imaginable from others), a neural network trained to predict the next word will tend to acquire something that looks — and may genuinely be — intelligent. The brain itself, Agüera y Arcas argues, is fundamentally an autoregressive sequence predictor, and the Transformer architecture, despite its differences from biological neural circuits, instantiates the same core principle.

The social brain's crowning structure, the prefrontal cortex, specializes precisely in theory of mind, and its dramatic expansion along the primate lineage underscores that human intelligence is, at its core, a collective achievement. We survive by the grace of others, our language exists for listeners, and even our involuntary signals — the blush, the quaver in the voice — are adaptations that make us legible to those around us. The self, in the end, is not a lonely Cartesian theater but a node in a web of mutual prediction, constituted by and for its relationships.

 

 

I am not my problem

I use this MindBlog to go back and look myself up occasionally, and so pass on this re-post of my 10/26/2025 post:

An explanation of the strange title of this post: Sometimes a new idea spontaneously appears from nowhere as I am waking in the morning. The title of this post - the (apparently nonsensical) sentence "I am not my problem” - is the latest example. The sentence can to be parsed to indicate in this instance that the "I" is referring to the illusory narrative self that our social brains have been designed by evolution to generate, and the "my" refers to our intuition or sensing of the vastly complex underlying interacting body systems (respiratory, circulatory, neuronal, muscular, endocrine, sensory, etc.) from which this veneer of a self rises. The brain is mainly not for thinking. It appears that several styles of meditation practice can expand our awareness of this fundamental generative layer. The "am not my problem" tries to make the point that distinguishing these systems can prove useful in trying to determine the origins of particular feelings or behaviors. 

As I’m writing these words I begin to realize that my “novel” waking insight isn’t so novel, but more an elaboration or restatement of my post of Friday, March 13, 2020, on “the relief of not being yourself,” which described another spontaneous rising of ideas associated with the transition between sleep and wakefulness. I repeat that text here:

What a relief to know that this is not me, it is just the contents of my consciousness, which shift around all the time and are never the same twice. What has changed, after 45 years of doing an introspective personal journal, is that this sentence has become clear and true for me. It is a prying loose from the illusion of the sensing and executive “I”, self, the homunculus inside.

There is a particular feeling of renewal, starting over, in the first moments of the transition to seeing - rather than immersed in being - one of the contents of consciousness. Meditation practice can be seen as training the ability to inhabit this state for longer periods of time, to experience the self or I as co-equal with other contents of consciousness like seeing, hearing, feeling. It is having thoughts without a thinker, having a self without a self.

What is inside is the animal mirror of expanded consciousness, no longer locked into one or another of its contractions. This feels to me like a potentially irreversible quantum bump, a phase or state change in my ongoing awareness (perhaps a long term increase in my brain’s attentional mode activity alongside a decrease its default mode’s mind wandering?...also frontal suppression of amygdalar reactivity?)

(the above is a re-post of my 6/6/22 post) 

Dangerous Ideas.......

Deric's MindBlog is almost 20 years old. Its first post appeared on Feb. 8, 2006. The assertions and ideas described in that original post are as fresh and relevant now as they were then, before the appearance of the iPhone, social media, and contracting attention spans.  The Edge.org link that once took you to the essays supporting the 'dangerous ideas' now takes you to their published version on Amazon. The "Reality Club" and John Brockman's "Third Culture" cohort of intellectuals has largely dispersed, although you will note many names still quite prominent today.   Here is the 2006 post:

***************

Edge.org is a website sponsored by the "Reality Club" (i.e. John Brockman, literary agent/impressario/socialite). Brockman has assembled a stable of scientists and other thinkers that he defines as a "third culture" that takes the place of traditional intellectuals in redefining who and what we are.... Each year a question is formulated for all to write on... In 2004 it was "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" The question for 2005 was "What is your dangerous idea?"

The responses organize themselves into several areas. Here are selected thumbnail summaries most directly relevant to human minds. I've not included cosmology and physics. Go to edge.org to read the essays

I. Nature of the human self or mind (by the way see my "I-Illusion" essay on my website):

Paulos - The self is a conceptual chimera
Shirky - Free will is going away
Nisbett - We are ignorant of our thinking processes
Horgan - We have no souls
Bloom - There are no souls, mind has a material basis.
Provine - This is all there is.
Anderson - Brains cannot become minds without bodies
Metzinger - Is being intellectually honest about the issue of free will compatible with preserving one's mental health?
Clark - Much of our behavior is determined by non-conscious, automatic uptake of cues and information
Turkle - Simulation will replace authenticity as computer simulation becomes fully naturalized.
Dawkins - A faulty person is no different from a faulty car. There is a mechanism determining behavior that needs to be fixed. The idea of responsibility is nonsense.
Smith - What we know may not change us. We will continue to conceive ourselves as centres of experience, self-knowing and free willing agents.

II. Natural explanations of culture

Sperber - Culture is natural.
Taylor - The human brain is a cultural artifact.
Hauser- There is a universal grammar of mental life.
Pinker - People differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments.
Goodwin - Similar coordinating patterns underlie biological and cultural evolution.
Venter - Revealing the genetic basis of personality and behavior will create societal conflicts.


III. Fundamental changes in political, economic, social order

O'donnell - The state will disappear.
Ridley - Government is the problem not the solution.
Shermer - Where goods cross frontiers armies won't.
Harari -Democracy is on its way out.
Csikszentmihalyi- The free market myth is destroying culture.
Goleman - The internet undermines the quality of human interaction.
Harris - Science must destroy religion.
Porco - Confrontation between science and religion might end when role played by science in lives of people is the same played by religion today.
Bering - Science will never silence God
Fisher - Drugs such as antidepressants jeopardize feelings of attachment and love
Iacoboni - Media Violence Induces Imitative Violence - the Problem with Mirrors
Morton - Our planet is not in peril, just humans are.

I am not my problem

An explanation of the strange title of this post: Sometimes a new idea spontaneously appears from nowhere as I am waking in the morning. The title of this post - the (apparently nonsensical) sentence "I am not my problem” - is the latest example. The sentence can to be parsed to indicate in this instance that the "I" is referring to the illusory narrative self that our social brains have been designed by evolution to generate, and the "my" refers to our intuition or sensing of the vastly complex underlying interacting body systems (respiratory, circulatory, neuronal, muscular, endocrine, sensory, etc.) from which this veneer of a self rises. The brain is mainly not for thinking. It appears that several styles of meditation practice can expand our awareness of this fundamental generative layer. The "am not my problem" tries to make the point that distinguishing these systems can prove useful in trying to determine the origins of particular feelings or behaviors. 

As I’m writing these words I begin to realize that my “novel” waking insight isn’t so novel, but more an elaboration or restatement of my post of Friday, March 13, 2020, on “the relief of not being yourself,” which described another spontaneous rising of ideas associated with the transition between sleep and wakefulness. I repeat that text here:

What a relief to know that this is not me, it is just the contents of my consciousness, which shift around all the time and are never the same twice. What has changed, after 45 years of doing an introspective persona

An explanation of the strange title of this post: Sometimes a new idea spontaneously appears from nowhere as I am waking in the morning. The title of this post - the (apparently nonsensical) sentence "I am not my problem” - is the latest example. The sentence can to be parsed to indicate in this instance that the "I" is referring to the illusory narrative self that our social brains have been designed by evolution to generate, and the "my" refers to our intuition or sensing of the vastly complex underlying interacting body systems (respiratory, circulatory, neuronal, muscular, endocrine, sensory, etc.) from which this veneer of a self rises. The brain is mainly not for thinking. It appears that several styles of meditation practice can expand our awareness of this fundamental generative layer. The "am not my problem" tries to make the point that distinguishing these systems can prove useful in trying to determine the origins of particular feelings or behaviors. 

As I’m writing these words I begin to realize that my “novel” waking insight isn’t so novel, but more an elaboration or restatement of my post of Friday, March 13, 2020, on “the relief of not being yourself,” which described another spontaneous rising of ideas associated with the transition between sleep and wakefulness. I repeat that text here:

What a relief to know that this is not me, it is just the contents of my consciousness, which shift around all the time and are never the same twice. What has changed, after 45 years of doing an introspective personal journal, is that this sentence has become clear and true for me. It is a prying loose from the illusion of the sensing and executive “I”, self, the homunculus inside.

There is a particular feeling of renewal, starting over, in the first moments of the transition to seeing - rather than immersed in being - one of the contents of consciousness. Meditation practice can be seen as training the ability to inhabit this state for longer periods of time, to experience the self or I as co-equal with other contents of consciousness like seeing, hearing, feeling. It is having thoughts without a thinker, having a self without a self.

What is inside is the animal mirror of expanded consciousness, no longer locked into one or another of its contractions. This feels to me like a potentially irreversible quantum bump, a phase or state change in my ongoing awareness (perhaps a long term increase in my brain’s attentional mode activity alongside a decrease its default mode’s mind wandering?...also frontal suppression of amygdalar reactivity?)

(the above is a re-post of my 6/6/22 post) 

l journal, is that this sentence has become clear and true for me. It is a prying loose from the illusion of the sensing and executive “I”, self, the homunculus inside.

There is a particular feeling of renewal, starting over, in the first moments of the transition to seeing - rather than immersed in being - one of the contents of consciousness. Meditation practice can be seen as training the ability to inhabit this state for longer periods of time, to experience the self or I as co-equal with other contents of consciousness like seeing, hearing, feeling. It is having thoughts without a thinker, having a self without a self.

What is inside is the animal mirror of expanded consciousness, no longer locked into one or another of its contractions. This feels to me like a potentially irreversible quantum bump, a phase or state change in my ongoing awareness (perhaps a long term increase in my brain’s attentional mode activity alongside a decrease its default mode’s mind wandering?...also frontal suppression of amygdalar reactivity?)

(the above is a re-post of my 6/6/22 post) 

Enlightenment, Habituation, and Renewal - non-dual awareness as the opiate of the thinking classes.

Enlightenment traditions in Abrahamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or other schools of meditative insight have a common issue. How can the central canon or dogma of the way things are be renewed and kept fresh? The usual practice is to repeat a liturgy set down by gurus or priests of a given tradition. The problem is that with each repetition the message  begins to loose its force. The transforming clarity of the initial enlightenment fades as the habituation and desensitization associated with all repetitive activities begins to set in. Temporary resets can sometimes be found by turning to different vendors of the central message who  deliver their respective theory or practice sessions in sonorous and calming voices, in person or online. Longer lectures from workshops or retreats have yielded audience share to increasingly  brief presentations that accommodate the diminished attention spans of those under 30 who have never known a world without social media. They can prefer to absorb information in transient instances of tik-tok mind, X/twitter mind, or instagram mind seconds to a few minutes in duration.

I have listened to several hundred instructional lectures. As I see the same basic points reframed in many different ways, it is clear that the fundamental axioms of enlightenment that are expressible in language are being repetitively rediscovered throughout history and repeatedly archived.  I feel like their verbal messages are as ingrained in my consciousness as the language of the mathematical and chemical structures I have known most of my life.

My flippant 'non-dual awareness as the opiate of the thinking classes’ phrase in the title of this post is meaning to point to the fact that the market for vendors of enlightenment is a distinctive one. Existential angst, or worrying about value, purpose, and meaning seem most pressing to a relatively small number of highly urbanized and literate humans. I can’t imagine that my two Abyssinian cats, who I sometimes takes to be my best role models, spend a significant fraction of their time worrying about the meaning of it all, or pondering the subtleties of epistemology and ontology. 

So...what beyond words? A space or perspective that doesn’t contain them can only be pointed at by using them in the dualistic linguistic context of a sender and receiver. I can, for example, try to use words to give a crude voice to the mute homeostatic generative visceral organic axes of valence and arousal that underlie and generate everything that I am and experience right now: “Dude, get a grip, I (the visceral one) am the one who is actually running this show, deciding where it goes and whether it works or shuts down. The sooner the “I” you imagine yourself to be realizes this and lets go, the sooner some kind of sane space is attained. All of the surface behaviors acted out for others to see - Deric the family man, the professor, the pianist - are shadow play shimmering on the surface of this basic organic substrate, like water insects skittering around on the surface of a pond. What is writing these words is just another one of the contents of consciousness flitting past. Just turn yourself around to look quickly for the writer…what do you see? What do you see as you imagine being first born into this world? The brief glimpses of expanded naive awareness sometimes elicited by questions such as these have the potential of permitting a scrubbing, refreshing, or renewal of consciousness in a way that permits more choice in selecting which prior individual selves and self habits rise to compose current self conscious life. 

Different iterations of these sentiments, different vendings of the sort mentioned in the first paragraph above, can be found in two previous MindBlog posts. One from Nov. 25, 2022:  

Perhaps an increasing number of people who engage techniques for facilitating non-dual awareness find themselves seeing and experiencing the "I" or self that feels threatened by our anxious times from a more useful perspective - an inclusive expanded awareness that includes the reporting "I" or self as just one of its many contents that include passing thoughts, perceptions, actions, and feelings.  A calm can be found in this expanded awareness that permits a  dis-association of the experienced breathing visceral center of gravity of our animal body from the emotional and linguistic veneer of politics and conflict. This does not remove the necessity of facing various societal dysfunctions, but offers the prospect of doing so without debilitating the organic physiological core from which everything we experience rises.  

And the other from Oct. 26, 2022, , passing on a masterful exposition from James Low that I can not improve on.

If you want stability, if you want real peace, you already have that in the nature of awareness. But if you look to manifestation, to patterning of yourself, to thinking you could establish a stable personalty, to live a life in which you were happy all the time, or in which you were your own person, that way madness lies. To find our original face, to find the ground of our primordial being, we need to release our fixation on the dialogic movement of subject and object, and allow ourselves to be the space within which the movement of experience is occurring. Awareness means being aware that we are present without being something as such. This is a great mystery. When we look at phenomena the world, things exist as something. A car is not a cow, an apple is not an orange, compare and contrast, category allocation. That’s how our cognition, our conceptual elaboration functions to give a seemingly enduring structure to identifications. But awareness can’t be caught. It’s not a thing. You can’t pin a tail on the donkey, there is no donkey there. The mind is not an object for itself, it is self luminous awareness, but you can’t catch it. You can never know your mind but you can be your mind. We are awareness and that’s a very important distinction. 

(The above is an updated,  revised and edited version of my Jan. 2, 2023 post.) 

Value, Purpose, Meaning, Futures

Value, purpose, and meaning vary between  religions and cultures, and are best viewed as emergent properties supporting altruistic behaviors bonding us into groups that have proven to be more successful at sustaining themselves over multiple generations.   I take the value, purpose, and meaning of my life as being to exist as an expanded present centered awareness that encompasses all of this - the space in which thoughts, feelings, selves appear and disappear. 

Our transient Anthropocene era is a brief moment in the vast history of this planet and the cosmos. The disappearance of our human species as we know it is a certainty, a transition either to extinction or to a further evolved trans-human form. Understanding and accepting this can be a source of serenity that enables us to live fully in the present moment as grateful witnesses to what is unfolding.