Not sure what you mean. The free energy principle plays it's part, one must suppose, but the question is as to the extent of that part, no?

Not sure what you mean. The free energy principle plays it's part, one must suppose, but the question is as to the extent of that part, no? — Banno

Yes, exactly the question. That's why if you factor in the relativistic nature of surprises to some agents, then quantifying the free energy becomes muddled. The formulation is problematic.

Did you mean arse? — Banno

Was the spelling ambiguous or just the semantic intent? :wink:

That the free energy principle is the constraint that drives adaptive learning is what is in contention. — Banno

For it to be in contention, folk would first need to demonstrate they understood it.

For the record, dopamine is the reason the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. It breaks habits as much as it cements new ones.

The link between dopamine and drug addiction is that opiates are chemically similar to dopamine. Drug addiction is the power of dopamine in spades.

It breaks habits as much as it cements new ones. — frank

A little dopamine keeps a state of focused attention/intention locked in. A sudden flush of dopamine wipes the slate clean. That explains the apparently contradictory effects.

H&N neurotransmitters have more to do with focus. Dopamine literally makes you think about what you don't have. It takes your focus away from, well, H&N.

No, it doesn't wipe anything in clean.

H&N neurotransmitters have more to do with focus. Dopamine literally makes you think about what you don't have. It takes your focus away from, well, H&N.

No, it doesn't wipe anything in clean. — frank

Lieberman again? His dichotomy of desire dopamine and control dopamine is one way of talking about the contrasting actions of dopamine in the striatum and prefrontal, I guess.

The lost keys form the driving desire - the long-range working memory intention. The found keys become the happy resolution - stop, see, here is what you were looking for.

All neurotransmitters do multiple things. It is better to think of neurotransmitters as keys which fit holes that turn on or off numerous items (some that act against each other).

What happens a lot (regarding the neurosciences) is researchers say one thing then journalists run with it and misrepresent it. This is probably something that happens more in the neurosciences than most other fields as it is effectively a new field of research and the amount of ground to cover within it grows exponentially day by day.

I think it's a question of the reliability of the evidence. One of the key features of miracles is that they're not reproducible. The Stern-Gerlach experiment is. They were both mysterious at some time, but the latter was reproducible, and therefore credible. — Kenosha Kid

Aye! Aye! The alleged miracle must be, as scientists say, reproducible and before that vetted carefully for reliability.

It's just that miracles, the religious kind, bespeak two human tendencies:

1. A rather scientific bent of mind. Lawrence Krauss (physicist) remarks in an interview that scientist's go to their workplaces with one and only one aim - prove their colleagues wrong. This I read to mean that scientists are on the lookout for disproving counterexamples to existing, universally endorsed theories (scientific miracles) like Einstein's relativity for example.

2. Attributing any such counterexamples to existing theories, scientific and otherwise, to the divine. This is the point of contention between science and religion. Scientists would consider any modified hypothesis that has god(s) in it to be inordinate/inappropriate, preferring rather to modify/replace the theory that's been disproved with another that fits the new data but still minus god(s). I guess science is in the business of answering how? questions rather than why? questions and saying a miracle is god's doing doesn't tell us anything at all as to how god did it?

I digress I suppose but the human proclivity for miracles, something that has, as far as I can tell, a high surprisal quotient, seems to contradict the dark room problem's predictions. That's itself a shocking revelation, right?

The free energy minimization theory is incorrect then, no?

I wonder what this has to do with a theory of everything vis-à-vis psychology.

There's no need to reply to my post. I feel it's a tangent to the main issue.

Hi. Do you see any metaphysical errors in the dark room problem?

A rather scientific bent of mind. Lawrence Krauss (physicist) remarks in an interview that scientist's go to their workplaces with one and only one aim - prove their colleagues wrong. This I read to mean that scientists are on the lookout for disproving counterexamples to existing, universally endorsed theories (scientific miracles) like Einstein's relativity for example. — TheMadFool

LK is rather narrow-minded. If reproducibility were the norm, a lot of science wouldn't exist. Stuff being reproducable is a methodological imperative narrowing scientific knowledge. Adhering strictly to it inhibits scientific progress. "But it has to be reproducable". The big bang would be a miracle. And it is a miracle!

questions and saying a miracle is god's doing doesn't tell us anything at all as to how god did it? — TheMadFool

God can interfere by means of hidden variables constituting the wavefunction. He could make wavefunctions in the atmosphere collapse in a controlled way to make a lighting flash strike you. I don't think he does though. He probably just leaves us alone.Turning water in wine is more complicated. The watery wavefunction is not fit. He just can't make winey atoms appear next to water ones.

Do you see any metaphysical errors in the dark room problem? — TheMadFool

I’ve said that it is only a “problem” premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of Friston’s Bayesian approach.

Banno is trying to do his usual thing of causing mischief and standing innocently on the sidelines.

Point being, despite some protestations to the contrary, it is still not clear how this fits in with thermodynamics and information theory. — Banno

You picked a rather peripheral article, a comment. Friston's background is in fMRI and computational neuroscience, and that is the inspiration and the main source of evidence for his free energy model, not so much high-level psychology. These would be a better place to start if anyone is looking for more substance:

A free energy principle for the brain (2006)

The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? (Nature Reviews 2010)

I’ve said that it is only a “problem” premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of Friston’s Bayesian approach.

Banno is trying to do his usual thing of causing mischief and standing innocently on the sidelines. — apokrisis

:ok: Good to know. Thanks.

LK is rather narrow-minded. If reproducibility were the norm, a lot of science wouldn't exist. Stuff being reproducable is a methodological imperative narrowing scientific knowledge. Adhering strictly to it inhibits scientific progress. "But it has to be reproducable". The big bang would be a miracle. And it is a miracle! — Cartuna

A point well made. However, I'm led to believe that there are other ways - scientifically valid ones - to verify that the Big Bang actually happened. Miracles, like the Big Bang CMBR, should leave a trail of bread crumbs we can use to reconstruct it. Such is lacking or so I'm told.

God can interfere by means of hidden variables constituting the wavefunction. He could make wavefunctions in the atmosphere collapse in a controlled way to make a lighting flash strike you. I don't think he does though. He probably just leaves us alone.Turning water in wine is more complicated. The watery wavefunction is not fit. He just can't make winey atoms appear next to water ones. — Cartuna

I thought that was a open-and-shut case: the hidden variables question i.e. there are none and QM is complete in its probabilistic qualities.

I thought that was a open-and-shut case: the hidden variables question i.e. there are none and QM is complete in its probabilistic qualities. — TheMadFool

It's not shut by far. This is what the majority of physicists want to belief. They just shut up and calculate, leaving a trail of confusion in philosophers who try to solve Schrödinger's cat, Wigner's friend, and the measurement problem. There are no experiments done which exclude their existence. Maybe they even constitute space. Connecting gravity to QM (which doesn't imply a quantum gravity though).

Alas, I'm too uneducated to compose a sensible reply.

Alas, I'm too uneducated to compose a sensible reply. — TheMadFool

There is no sensible reply. How would that look like? Untill now, hidden variables are just an assumption. But more "satisfying" than the orthodoxy ruling.

There is no sensible reply. How would that look like? Untill now, hidden variables are just an assumption. But more "satisfying" than the orthodoxy ruling — Cartuna

Sometimes truth is not all that matters, plus most truths are, well, boooooring! Isn't that why the fantasy genre is doing so well in the video game market? Between truth and fun, no one in his right mind will choose the former. Truth! Bah!

I totally agree. To every claim that one has found a ToE on can counter that it is just a fantasy in the mind's eye, constructed to evade the the abundance we see and experience. You can even sanely-minded contend that reality as encountered in video games is the physical reality and every deviation from it an illusion. No matter what physicists might say. You have to be carefull though on high roofs, because there reality is lying to you.

I don't think what I say matters anymore.

I don't think what I say matters anymore. — TheMadFool

Keep it up...

Keep what up? I haven't done anything that's worth...keeping up. :chin:

Keep what up? I haven't done anything that's worth...keeping up. :chin:
now — TheMadFool

Well, take it up then...

Well, take it up then... — Cartuna

:ok: whatever you mean.

whatever you mean. — TheMadFool

I mean the metaphysics of the dark room.

I dunno. Just a vague idea regarding that but it's probably nothing. Muddled-thinking at best.

dunno. Just a vague idea regarding that but it's probably nothing. Muddled-thinking at best. — TheMadFool

It's muddled thinking that paves the way to the biggest breakthrough. Together with fuzzy logic. It's an explosive cocktail. Fuzzy mud.

I didn't read the article thoroughly but I'm struggling to see the utility of the "dark room" model being discussed. As far as I can tell, this is supposed to be a place where non-anticipated stimuli are at a minimum:

Organisms that succeed, the free-energy principle mandates, do so by minimizing their tendency to enter into this special kind of surprising (that is, non-anticipated) state. But at first sight this principle seems bizarre. Animals do not simply find a dark corner and stay there. Play and exploration are core features of many life-forms.

Bizarre is about right. The dark room is barren, so why would it be attractive for survival? I don't get it. Where's the food? Or are we assuming an infinite source of sustenance? And how is that at all useful as a model? I think that's what you were getting at before, @TheMadFool, am I right?

Even assuming infinite sustenance or leaving it out of the equation somehow, the model is still unappealing to me. We supposedly discovered fire because lightening struck some kindling. I can't imagine any such perfectly isolated environment for an "organism" to retreat into.

It would seem that "exploration" can be readily explained as something that you do because the pond dried up, or you're all out of berries, and I guess "play" has social origins or whatnot.

But why is minimising surprise the very same as living longest? — Banno

It is for the contrived definition of "living" that seems to be used here, almost entirely by definition. If life is nothing but avoiding non-anticipated stimuli, then minimising non-anticipated stimuli means living longer?

Yes, a human is only one example of a biological system, but you only need one counterexample to falsify a law. — Kenosha Kid

I'm over here struggling to think of an example. Not of a biological system, but of an ecosystem that would even vaguely resemble this "dark room".

Our fear of lurking tigers _is_ quite different from our innate curiosity for the novel, and should be treated as such. — Kenosha Kid

:up: