scholarly journals Modelling ourselves: what the free energy principle reveals about our implicit notions of representation

Synthese ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Sims ◽  
Giovanni Pezzulo
Keyword(s):  
Free Energy ◽  
Philosophy Of Mind ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
Energy Principle ◽  
Philosophical Debate ◽  
Free Energy Principle ◽  
Self Organized ◽  
Functional Aspects ◽  
Structural Content ◽  
Unified View

AbstractPredictive processing theories are increasingly popular in philosophy of mind; such process theories often gain support from the Free Energy Principle (FEP)—a normative principle for adaptive self-organized systems. Yet there is a current and much discussed debate about conflicting philosophical interpretations of FEP, e.g., representational versus non-representational. Here we argue that these different interpretations depend on implicit assumptions about what qualifies (or fails to qualify) as representational. We deploy the Free Energy Principle (FEP) instrumentally to distinguish four main notions of representation, which focus on organizational, structural, content-related and functional aspects, respectively. The various ways that these different aspects matter in arriving at representational or non-representational interpretations of the Free Energy Principle are discussed. We also discuss how the Free Energy Principle may be seen as a unified view where terms that traditionally belong to different ontologies—e.g., notions of model and expectation versus notions of autopoiesis and synchronization—can be harmonized. However, rather than attempting to settle the representationalist versus non-representationalist debate and reveal something about what representations are simpliciter, this paper demonstrates how the Free Energy Principle may be used to reveal something about those partaking in the debate; namely, what our hidden assumptions about what representations are—assumptions that act as sometimes antithetical starting points in this persistent philosophical debate.

scholarly journals Integrated World Modeling Theory (IWMT) Implemented: Towards Reverse Engineering Consciousness with the Free Energy Principle and Active Inference

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Safron
Keyword(s):  
Free Energy ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Phenomenal Consciousness ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
Active Inference ◽  
Perceptual Inference ◽  
Energy Principle ◽  
Free Energy Principle ◽  
World Modeling ◽  
Modeling Theory

Integrated World Modeling Theory (IWMT) is a synthetic model that attempts to unify theories of consciousness within the Free Energy Principle and Active Inference framework, with particular emphasis on Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT). IWMT further suggests predictive processing in sensory hierarchies may be well-modeled as (folded, sparse, partially disentangled) variational autoencoders, with beliefs discretely-updated via the formation of synchronous complexes—as self-organizing harmonic modes (SOHMs)—potentially entailing maximal a posteriori (MAP) estimation via turbo coding. In this account, alpha-synchronized SOHMs across posterior cortices may constitute the kinds of maximal complexes described by IIT, as well as samples (or MAP estimates) from multimodal shared latent space, organized according to egocentric reference frames, entailing phenomenal consciousness as mid-level perceptual inference. When these posterior SOHMs couple with frontal complexes, this may enable various forms of conscious access as a kind of mental act(ive inference), affording higher order cognition/control, including the kinds of attentional/intentional processing and reportability described by GNWT. Across this autoencoding heterarchy, intermediate-level beliefs may be organized into spatiotemporal trajectories by the entorhinal/hippocampal system, so affording episodic memory, counterfactual imaginings, and planning.

Predictive Processing

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanja Wiese
Keyword(s):  
Free Energy ◽  
Bayesian Inference ◽  
General Framework ◽  
External World ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
Energy Principle ◽  
Free Energy Principle ◽  
Action And Perception ◽  
Conceptual Distinction ◽  
The Mind

This chapter provides an introduction to predictive processing (PP), with a focus on its relation to Bayesian inference and the more general framework provided by Karl Friston’s free-energy principle (FEP). Philosophical implications of PP and FEP are discussed. In particular, it is argued that PP posits genuine representations, and that FEP questions whether the conceptual distinction between action and perception is useful when it comes to understanding their neuro-computational underpinnings. Finally, it is argued that PP supports the view that the mind is to some extent secluded from the external world and that perception is indirect because it is based on genuinely inferential processes.

scholarly journals Confucian Free Energy: The Predictive Mind in Ancient China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Thestrup Waade
Keyword(s):  
Free Energy ◽  
Philosophy Of Mind ◽  
Statistical Physics ◽  
Ground Truth ◽  
Human Cognition ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
Energy Principle ◽  
Action Orientation ◽  
Free Energy Principle ◽  
The World

Roger Ames presents an interpretation of the classic Confucian philosophy where the world is seen as an always ongoing, radically interrelational, holistic process best described in terms of focus and field. Without any permanent ground truth, its inhabitants must be action-oriented way-makers: irreducibly social optimizers, and contextual co-creators, of their shared cosmos. Meanwhile, a prag- matic turn is happening in the cognitive sciences, instantiated in a new and ambitious theoretical framework: Karl Friston’s free energy principle, which aims to be a unifying paradigm for the sci- ences of brain, life and mind. Based on first principles from statistical physics, it describes humans - and self-organizing systems in general - as continually modelling and predicting the world. The full spectrum of human cognition and behavior is then generated by a single mechanism: the mini- mization of the difference between predicted and actual sensory inputs. Although still controversial, the free energy principle is gaining traction within robotics, biology, neuroscience, psychology, so- cial sciences and philosophy of mind. I here compare these two worldviews from so vastly different backgrounds, and find, perhaps surprisingly, that they in many respects are immediately compati- ble. Social co-creativity across spatio-temporal scales, contextualization, action-orientation and the Confucian virtues naturally translate to or integrate with free energy principle terms. Even when in seeming disagreement, for example on the question of the appearance/reality dichotomy, or that of reductive materialism which often separates the sciences and humanities in general, the two frame- works seem able to positively inform or nuance each other. This multidisciplinary comparison is interesting because it can potentially inform or guide the two theories, and address recent critiques of Ames, and as a proof of concept that bridges can be built across times, cultures and academic traditions.

scholarly journals Bayesian theories of consciousness: a review in search for a minimal unifying model

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wiktor Rorot
Keyword(s):  
Free Energy ◽  
Conscious Experience ◽  
Generative Model ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
Active Inference ◽  
Energy Principle ◽  
Free Energy Principle

Abstract The goal of the paper is to review existing work on consciousness within the frameworks of Predictive Processing, Active Inference, and Free Energy Principle. The emphasis is put on the role played by the precision and complexity of the internal generative model. In the light of those proposals, these two properties appear to be the minimal necessary components for the emergence of conscious experience—a Minimal Unifying Model of consciousness.

The cost of over-intellectualizing the free-energy principle

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel D. Hutto
Keyword(s):  
Free Energy ◽  
Social Cognition ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
Other Minds ◽  
Energy Principle ◽  
Free Energy Principle ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Processing Framework

Abstract This commentary raises a question about the target article's proposed explanation of what goes on when we think through other minds. It highlights a tension between non-mindreading characterizations of everyday social cognition and the individualist, cognitivist assumptions that target article's explanatory proposal inherits from the predictive processing framework it favours.

scholarly journals Predicting green: really radical (plant) predictive processing

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (131) ◽  
pp. 20170096 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paco Calvo ◽  
Karl Friston
Keyword(s):  
Free Energy ◽  
Biological Systems ◽  
Local Environment ◽  
Sensory Stimulation ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
Active Inference ◽  
Energy Principle ◽  
Free Energy Principle ◽  
Adaptive Value ◽  
Plant Behaviour

In this article we account for the way plants respond to salient features of their environment under the free-energy principle for biological systems. Biological self-organization amounts to the minimization of surprise over time. We posit that any self-organizing system must embody a generative model whose predictions ensure that (expected) free energy is minimized through action. Plants respond in a fast, and yet coordinated manner, to environmental contingencies. They pro-actively sample their local environment to elicit information with an adaptive value. Our main thesis is that plant behaviour takes place by way of a process (active inference) that predicts the environmental sources of sensory stimulation. This principle, we argue, endows plants with a form of perception that underwrites purposeful, anticipatory behaviour. The aim of the article is to assess the prospects of a radical predictive processing story that would follow naturally from the free-energy principle for biological systems; an approach that may ultimately bear upon our understanding of life and cognition more broadly.

scholarly journals The dark room problem in predictive processing and active inference, a legacy of cognitivism?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Baltieri ◽  
Christopher Buckley
Keyword(s):  
Free Energy ◽  
Action Learning ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
Prediction Errors ◽  
Active Inference ◽  
Energy Principle ◽  
Sensory Stimuli ◽  
Free Energy Principle ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Dark Room

The free energy principle describes cognitive functions such as perception, action, learning and attention in terms of surprisal minimisation. Under simplifying assumptions, agents are depicted as systems minimising a weighted sum of prediction errors encoding the mismatch between incoming sensations and an agent's predictions about such sensations. The ``dark room'' is defined as a state that an agent would occupy should it only look to minimise this sum of prediction errors. This (paradoxical) state emerges as the contrast between the attempts to describe the richness of human and animal behaviour in terms of surprisal minimisation and the trivial solution of a dark room, where the complete lack of sensory stimuli would provide the easiest way to minimise prediction errors, i.e., to be in a perfectly predictable state of darkness with no incoming stimuli. Using a process theory derived from the free energy principle, active inference, we investigate with an agent-based model the meaning of the dark room problem and discuss some of its implications for natural and artificial systems. In this set up, we propose that the presence of this paradox is primarily due to the long-standing belief that agents should encode accurate world models, typical of traditional (computational) theories of cognition.

scholarly journals Toward an Embodied, Embedded Predictive Processing Account

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmarie Venter
Keyword(s):  
Free Energy ◽  
Prediction Error ◽  
The Body ◽  
The Other ◽  
Predictive Processing ◽  
Error Minimization ◽  
Energy Principle ◽  
Free Energy Principle ◽  
Prediction Error Minimization

In this paper, I argue for an embodied, embedded approach to predictive processing and thus align the framework with situated cognition. The recent popularity of theories conceiving of the brain as a predictive organ has given rise to two broad camps in the literature that I call free energy enactivism and cognitivist predictive processing. The two approaches vary in scope and methodology. The scope of cognitivist predictive processing is narrow and restricts cognition to brain processes and structures; it does not consider the body-beyond-brain and the environment as constituents of cognitive processes. Free energy enactivism, on the other hand, includes all self-organizing systems that minimize free energy (including non-living systems) and thus does not offer any unique explanations for more complex cognitive phenomena that are unique to human cognition. Furthermore, because of its strong commitment to the mind-life continuity thesis, it does not provide an explanation of what distinguishes more sophisticated cognitive systems from simple systems. The account that I develop in this paper rejects both of these radical extremes. Instead, I propose a compromise that highlights the necessary components of predictive processing by making use of a mechanistic methodology of explanation. The starting point of the argument in this paper is that despite the interchangeable use of the terms, prediction error minimization and the free energy principle are not identical. But this distinction does not need to disrupt the status quo of the literature if we consider an alternative approach: Embodied, Embedded Predictive Processing (EEPP). EEPP accommodates the free energy principle, as argued for by free energy enactivism, but it also allows for mental representations in its explanation of cognition. Furthermore, EEPP explains how prediction error minimization is realized but, unlike cognitivist PP, it allocates a constitutive role to the body in cognition. Despite highlighting concerns regarding cognitivist PP, I do not wish to discredit the role of the neural domain or representations as free energy enactivism does. Neural structures and processes undeniably contribute to the minimization of prediction error but the role of the body is equally important. On my account, prediction error minimization and free energy minimization are deeply dependent on the body of an agent, such that the body-beyond-brain plays a constitutive role in cognitive processing. I suggest that the body plays three constitutive roles in prediction error minimization: The body regulates cognitive activity, ensuring that cognition and action are intricately linked. The body acts as distributor in the sense that it carries some of the cognitive load by fulfilling the function of minimizing prediction error. Finally, the body serves to constrain the information that is processed by an agent. In fulfilling these three roles, the agent and environment enter into a bidirectional relation through influencing and modeling the structure of the other. This connects EEPP to the free energy principle because the whole embodied agent minimizes free energy in virtue of being a model of its econiche. This grants the body a constitutive role as part of the collection of mechanisms that minimize prediction error and free energy. The body can only fulfill its role when embedded in an environment, of which it is a model. In this sense, EEPP offers the most promising alternative to cognitivist predictive processing and free energy enactivism.

Encultured minds, not error reduction minds

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Mirski ◽  
Mark H. Bickhard ◽  
David Eck ◽  
Arkadiusz Gut
Keyword(s):  
Free Energy ◽  
Error Reduction ◽  
Energy Principle ◽  
Free Energy Principle ◽  
Current Article

Abstract There are serious theoretical problems with the free-energy principle model, which are shown in the current article. We discuss the proposed model's inability to account for culturally emergent normativities, and point out the foundational issues that we claim this inability stems from.

scholarly journals Is free-energy minimisation the mark of the cognitive?

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Kiverstein ◽  
Matt Sims
Keyword(s):  
Nervous System ◽  
Free Energy ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Living Systems ◽  
Energy Principle ◽  
Free Energy Principle ◽  
Energy Minimisation ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Evolution Of Life ◽  
Mark Of The Cognitive

AbstractA mark of the cognitive should allow us to specify theoretical principles for demarcating cognitive from non-cognitive causes of behaviour in organisms. Specific criteria are required to settle the question of when in the evolution of life cognition first emerged. An answer to this question should however avoid two pitfalls. It should avoid overintellectualising the minds of other organisms, ascribing to them cognitive capacities for which they have no need given the lives they lead within the niches they inhabit. But equally it should do justice to the remarkable flexibility and adaptiveness that can be observed in the behaviour of microorganisms that do not have a nervous system. We should resist seeking non-cognitive explanations of behaviour simply because an organism fails to exhibit human-like feats of thinking, reasoning and problem-solving. We will show how Karl Friston’s Free-Energy Principle (FEP) can serve as the basis for a mark of the cognitive that avoids the twin pitfalls of overintellectualising or underestimating the cognitive achievements of evolutionarily primitive organisms. The FEP purports to describe principles of organisation that any organism must instantiate if it is to remain well-adapted to its environment. Living systems from plants and microorganisms all the way up to humans act in ways that tend in the long run to minimise free energy. If the FEP provides a mark of the cognitive, as we will argue it does, it mandates that cognition should indeed be ascribed to plants, microorganisms and other organisms that lack a nervous system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document