Hidden Purpose

An investigation · Rufo y Rufo

HiddenPurpose

An investigation into who we are, why we act, and how we find meaning.

First, to know. Then, to believe. Finally, to act.
Or so we thought.

Available on Amazon
Also in Spanish: Propósito Oculto

Cover of Hidden Purpose, by Rufo y Rufo: a golden eye ringed by incomplete circles against a night sky.

The question

Is there something behind all of this?

Almost all of us have asked ourselves this question at some point, usually at night, usually without looking for it. This book was born from it.

It does not promise to answer it. It promises to show you how a question changes when you actually take the trouble to investigate it, instead of settling for the first hunch that comes to mind at three in the morning.

Read the full Prologue

The book

Read it like a story. Investigate it like a problem.

A woman gets the time right with a stopped watch. A bacterium with no brain seems to remember the future. Three judges issue a ruling that none of them would sign. A flock of starlings draws in the sky a shape that no bird knows. Everyday stories that, seen up close, take apart the words we thought we understood: knowing, believing, having a purpose, acting.

It is written as a narrative, without jargon and with rigor. It draws on philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and systems theory, and its appendix shows what comes from the scientific literature, what was built here, and what remains open.

It promises neither a final answer nor a five-step method. It offers something more modest: a far more precise question than the one we started with, and the honesty to say how far what we know goes.

Genre
Popular philosophy and science
Structure
Prologue, 18 chapters in 7 parts, Epilogue, and Appendix
Languages
English and Spanish (Propósito Oculto)

Four stories to begin with

Illustration of a pocket watch stopped at ten past two.

Chapter 1

The Stopped Watch

Marta gets the time right. Did she know it, or just get it right?

Illustration of a bacterium with flagella and, ahead of it, faint outlines suggesting its future.

Chapter 7

The Bacterium That Seems to Remember the Future

With not a single nerve, it prepares for something that has not yet happened.

Abstract illustration of three judges’ votes: filled and empty circles in columns, and a final ruling ringed by a halo.

Chapter 8

The Court of Three Judges

A ruling that none of the three would sign on their own.

Illustration of a flock of starlings forming a wave in the night sky.

Chapter 16

The Flock of Starlings

A shape in the sky that no bird knows.

The seven parts

Part IThe Four DoorsChapters 1–4 · Knowing, Believing, Having a Purpose, Acting
Four words we use every day without thinking. A stopped watch, a brother who asks for loans, an inherited hardware store, and a climber who lets go of the rope.
Part IIWhen the Four Doors BreakChapters 5–6
Cards on a dining table and an uncomfortable suspicion: what if they were never four different things?
Part IIILooking for the PatternChapters 7–9
A bacterium that seems to remember the future, a court that decides what nobody decided, and a question about carbon and silicon.
Part IVThree Ways of Looking at the Same ThingChapters 10–12
The brain that predicts, the organism that controls, and the world that offers possibilities: three scientific traditions, one similar structure, the same silence.
Part VThe MapChapters 13–14
The stars were real; the lines joining them were not. And a chain that survived as a story.
Part VIWhat We Could Not FindChapters 15–16
The residue that no alternative explanation managed to erase, and why something emerging does not mean something opening.
Part VIIThe Center That Did Not OpenChapters 17–18
For the first time, the question no longer points at a bacterium or a court: it points at you. And three uncertainties worth keeping apart.

And at the end, an Epilogue—what we found while looking for something else—and an Appendix: how we researched what we tell.

The map

Four words, four pieces

When we opened up the four words we began with, we found the same pieces spread in different proportions. Choose a word and see which pieces it needs, according to Chapter 6.

Illustration of four stars joined by dashed lines into a figure, and a brighter light, apart, with no line touching it.
Chapter 13
The stars were real. The lines that joined them were not.
1That it not be a stroke of luck in disguise
central
2That it can be corrected if something goes wrong
central
3That it truly matters to you, not just that it happens
almost absent
4That it be truly yours, and not just something you carry out
not stated

Knowing needs, above all, that it not be a stroke of luck and that it can be corrected. That it matter to you barely takes part: you can know something that is completely indifferent to you.

An illustrative sketch of what the chapter says, not measured data. Where the book is silent, the bar stays empty.

Chapter 18

Three uncertainties worth keeping apart

1

Not knowing enough

The forecast says seventy percent chance of rain. The atmosphere hasn’t decided anything: it is we who don’t have all the data.

2

Not being fixed in advance

A radioactive atom disintegrates at an instant that, according to the best physical theory, no prior state determines. It is not that the universe knows it and we don’t.

3

Openness that is someone’s

The most demanding: that the resolution of an open possibility genuinely belong to the system that resolves it, neither by prior calculation nor by a chance that is no one’s. In eighteen chapters we did not find it demonstrated. Nor did we find it ruled out.

A thought experiment

In the argument from Chapter 17 you are about to say the words that hurt most. Imagine that what decides between your keeping quiet or not were a coin.

Press to toss it.

How we researched it

How we researched what we tell

This site does not ask you to believe us because we did a lot of research. It shows you which part comes from others, which part we built ourselves, and where the evidence ends. As in the book, we do not present as facts what are still hypotheses.

Five states for every claim

Known
There is sufficient evidence.
Probable
There is favorable evidence, but it is not conclusive.
Hypothesis
It must be investigated.
Faith
A conviction that does not depend exclusively on demonstrable evidence.
Unknown
We do not have sufficient knowledge.

Traceability, chapter by chapter

Chapter
Research that supports it
Status
1. Knowing
Gettier (1963) on knowledge as justified true belief; Popper on falsifiability
Established literature
2. Believing
Cohen (1992) acceptance vs. belief; Howard-Snyder (2013/2018) faith as a family; Buchak (2012); Lakatos on the resilience of a theoretical core
Established literature + own synthesis (the “family” as a unifying framework)
3. Having a Purpose
Barandiaran, Di Paolo, and Rohde (2009) on autonomy; Montévil and Mossio (2015) on closure of constraints
Established literature + own synthesis
4. Acting
Davidson (1963) primary reasons; Frankfurt (1978) guidance theory; Di Nucci (2011) automatic actions
Established literature + own synthesis
5–6. The Problem / The Pieces
Cross-comparison of the findings of chapters 1–4
Own research
7. The Bacterium
Tagkopoulos, Liu, and Tavazoie (2008, Science); Mitchell et al. (2009, Nature); Jabbur, Bratton, and Johnson (2024, Science)
Established scientific literature
8. The Court
Kornhauser and Sager (1986) doctrinal paradox; List and Pettit (2002) judgment aggregation
Established literature
9. What If It Doesn’t Matter Whether It’s Biological?
List (2025) on free will in AI systems; conditions for normative self-generation
Established literature + own synthesis (the three proposed conditions for normative self-generation)
10. The Brain That Predicts
Friston (2010) Free Energy Principle; Parr, Pezzulo, and Friston (2022); Friston, Thornton, and Clark (2012) dark-room problem
Established scientific literature
11. The Organism That Controls
Powers (1973) Perceptual Control Theory; Conant and Ashby (1970) common cybernetic ancestor
Established scientific literature
12. The World That Offers Possibilities
Gibson (affordances); Di Paolo (2005) adaptivity; Rietveld and Kiverstein (2014); Bruineberg (enactive critique)
Established literature
13–14. The Stars / The Chain
Synthesis of everything above; reformulation of the project’s initial hypothesis
Own research
15. The Residue
Cross-cutting audit of the findings of chapters 5–14; Steward (2012) on settling as a background concept for “resolving a genuinely open question”
Established literature + own research
16. Emergence Is Not Openness
Reynolds (1987)—computational model of simulated flocks; Ballerini et al. (2008)—empirical study of real flocks; the court case (ch. 8)
Established scientific literature + own synthesis (the conceptual distinction). See the clarifications below.
17. Is Anyone There?
Libet (1983); Schurger et al. (2012, 2021); Sjöberg (2024); Nisbett and Wilson (1977)
Established scientific literature
18. Three Uncertainties
Distinction among epistemological, physical, and agential indeterminacy, built for this book
Own research

Three clarifications

Starlings (Chapter 16)

Reynolds (1987) is a computational model; Ballerini and colleagues (2008) measured real flocks. The chapter narrates them together, but they are different things: a model and a measurement.

Libet and Schurger (Chapter 17)

They are not to be read as a block demonstrating that agency does not exist. The later work of Schurger and colleagues questions and weakens the classic reading of Libet.

Our own categories

The difference between something emerging and something being genuinely open is not an established concept under those names. It is an organizing tool of ours, not a finding you can cite as “demonstrated by science.”

Essential bibliography

Only the sources that directly support the content of the chapters.

  • Ballerini, M. et al. “Interaction Ruling Animal Collective Behavior Depends on Topological Rather Than Metric Distance.” PNAS 105(4), 2008.
  • Barandiaran, X., Di Paolo, E., and Rohde, M. “Defining Agency: Individuality, Normativity, Asymmetry, and Spatiotemporality in Action.” Adaptive Behavior 17(5), 2009.
  • Bruineberg, J. “Active Inference and the Primacy of the ‘I Can’.” In T. Metzinger and W. Wiese (eds.), Philosophy and Predictive Processing. Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group, 2017.
  • Buchak, L. “Can It Be Rational to Have Faith?” In Probability in the Philosophy of Religion, 2012.
  • Cohen, L.J. An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. Oxford University Press, 1992.
  • Conant, R., and Ashby, W.R. “Every Good Regulator of a System Must Be a Model of That System.” International Journal of Systems Science 1(2), 1970.
  • Davidson, D. “Actions, Reasons, and Causes.” Journal of Philosophy 60(23), 1963.
  • Di Nucci, E. “Automatic Actions: Challenging Causalism.” Rationality Markets and Morals, 2011.
  • Di Paolo, E. “Autopoiesis, Adaptivity, Teleology, Agency.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4(4), 2005.
  • Frankfurt, H. “The Problem of Action.” American Philosophical Quarterly 15(2), 1978.
  • Friston, K. “The Free-Energy Principle: A Unified Brain Theory?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11(2), 2010.
  • Friston, K., Thornton, C., and Clark, A. “Free-Energy Minimization and the Dark-Room Problem.” Frontiers in Psychology 3:130, 2012.
  • Gettier, E. “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis 23(6), 1963.
  • Howard-Snyder, D. “Propositional Faith: What It Is and What It Is Not.” American Philosophical Quarterly 50(4), 2013.
  • Jabbur, M.L., Bratton, B.P., and Johnson, C.H. “Bacteria Can Anticipate the Seasons: Photoperiodism in Cyanobacteria.” Science 385(6712), 2024.
  • Kornhauser, L., and Sager, L. “Unpacking the Court.” Yale Law Journal 96(1), 1986.
  • List, C. “Can AI Systems Have Free Will?” Synthese 206(3), 2025.
  • List, C., and Pettit, P. “Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result.” Economics and Philosophy 18(1), 2002.
  • Mitchell, A. et al. “Adaptive Prediction of Environmental Changes by Microorganisms.” Nature 460(7252), 2009.
  • Montévil, M., and Mossio, M. “Biological Organisation as Closure of Constraints.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 372, 2015.
  • Nisbett, R., and Wilson, T. “Telling More Than We Can Know.” Psychological Review 84(3), 1977.
  • Parr, T., Pezzulo, G., and Friston, K. Active Inference: The Free Energy Principle in Mind, Brain, and Behavior. MIT Press, 2022.
  • Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 1959.
  • Powers, W.T. Behavior: The Control of Perception. Aldine, 1973.
  • Reynolds, C. “Flocks, Herds, and Schools: A Distributed Behavioral Model.” Computer Graphics 21(4), 1987.
  • Rietveld, E., and Kiverstein, J. “A Rich Landscape of Affordances.” Ecological Psychology 26(4), 2014.
  • Schurger, A., Sitt, J.D., and Dehaene, S. “An Accumulator Model for Spontaneous Neural Activity Prior to Self-Initiated Movement.” PNAS 109(42), 2012.
  • Sjöberg, R.L. “The Readiness Potential and the Soul: What Happens When You Resect Their Seat in the Brain?” Brain 147(7), 2024, 2267–2269.
  • Steward, H. A Metaphysics for Freedom. Oxford University Press, 2012.
  • Tagkopoulos, I., Liu, Y.C., and Tavazoie, S. “Predictive Behavior Within Microbial Genetic Networks.” Science 320(5881), 2008.

Authors

Rufo y Rufo

Two voices, one question. They began with a comfortable question and ended with a more precise one, a stranger one and, they believe, a far more honest one.

Buy on Amazon