It's muddled thinking that paves the way to the biggest breakthrough. Together with fuzzy logic. It's an explosive cocktail. Fuzzy mud — Cartuna
I didn't read the article thoroughly but I'm struggling to see the utility of the "dark room" model being discussed. — the affirmation of strife
I do not think that any single criterion, such as conformity with existing science, can be laid down for assessing a haunted-universe doctrine. This taskis more like assessing the worth of a man's character than the legality of his acts. Conformity with existing science is a favourable factor, but it may be outweighed by a pragmatic estimate of the doctrine's possible influence on the future of science. There re also its bearings on psychology, history, social science, morals and politics to be systematically explored and collectively weighed
If the only line of attack on an idea relies on a fundamental misrepresentation of the idea, then it’s critics are doing a mighty poor job. — apokrisis
Again the point is made that an explanation for everything is an explanation for nothing. — Banno
It tries to oversimplify human behavior, which is wayyyy more complex,with a naive way — dimosthenis9
Hence the theory of evolution inspired wider research that was itself confirmable or falsifiable; and so on. Conservation laws are each examples of scientific statements that are neither falsifiable nor verifiable, but which have the singular advantage of underpinning expansive and efficacious explanations. They work.The more interesting and hard problem is that all and some statements don't just inspire research hypotheses, they are conceptually related to research hypotheses and thus inspire research hypotheses. "All and some" statements purport to tell us how stuff works, so we go out looking as if it works that way. — fdrake
Indeed, it does. So the question becomes one of how successful it is at doing so. It might be - indeed it seems likely - that this approach will lead to a better understanding of the function of various neural bits and pieces. It seems less likely that it will be able to explain why one person likes vanilla yet the other chocolate. And it will not demonstrate why you should vote Green. The temptation to look to unifying explanations is to be avoided if it leads to oversimplification.It tries to oversimplify human behavior, — dimosthenis9
The temptation to look to unifying explanations is to be avoided if it leads to oversimplification. — 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? — the affirmation of strife
But that reinforces, rather than helps dispel, an instinctive distrust of theories that explain everything. — Banno
You do understand that I am agreeing with you that this is an interesting area of research? — Banno
But you seem to think that this little exercise has explained consciousness. That strikes me as overreach, and it seems I am not alone. — Banno
I'm too old to watch videos. — Banno
So the question becomes one of how successful it is at doing so. It might be - indeed it seems likely - that this approach will lead to a better understanding of the function of various neural bits and pieces. — Banno
Again the point is made that an explanation for everything is an explanation for nothing. — Banno
So yes, there is one general story to be had - a semiotic theory of everything. That is implied in Friston’s approach, but not mathematically expressed in direct fashion — apokrisis
Not sure this is the right word. It seems to me that the very sophistication of the approach leads some to over-applying it....naive... — dimosthenis9
Not sure this is the right word. It seems to me that the very sophistication of the approach leads some to over-applying it. — Banno
Well, not quite. We want a theory that rules out things that are contradicted by the evidence.The fact that a theory can explain all evidence doesn't distinguish between a good theory and a vacuous theory. — SophistiCat
...there is no way to establish which is the case other than scrutinizing the theory and how it purports to explain evidence. There are no easy shortcuts here to dismissive judgements. — SophistiCat
Just to be sure, I'm not saying that PP/PEM seems to have an explanation for everything; but that it would be wrong to read it as having an explanation for everything. Does anyone here do that? Perhaps....seems to have an explanation for everything — SophistiCat
That's the long-expected post. Your habit of attacking the messenger has been noted by others. — Banno
Maybe if it was presented differently would be much more helpful as people to take notice on it . — dimosthenis9
It is a sign of a strength of the free energy principle that the bogus “dark room problem” is the best opposition that might be mustered. — apokrisis
The trick is then to act in ways that only increase your certainty about the sensations you will experience. If the certainty of your actions effectively reduces the uncertainty of your sensations, then the two sides of the equation are tightly coupled in a way that optimises your ability to exist in the world. — apokrisis
You are winning to the degree your plans for your future don’t encounter the unexpected. But an organism lives in the world. It exists because it can tame environmental uncertainty through its actions. It can feed itself, protect itself, reproduce itself, etc. It can act in ways that reduce the world’s uncertainty. So it doesn’t need to retreat to the refuge of a darkened room to escape the environment’s capacity to surprise. — apokrisis
But the theory actually states that life expresses the drive to avoid becoming randomised by its environment. — apokrisis
Maintaining free energy means maintaining the status quo. — Cartuna
Other than the video, is there maybe a more up-to-date article on this topic that you can recommend? — the affirmation of strife
But this "darkened room problem" is a tedious misrepresentation of the maths. And as I say, if this is the best you have got, you ain't got nothing. — apokrisis
this is huge because it allows neuroscience to finally kick computationalism and Cartesian representationalism out the door. — apokrisis
Well, not quite. We want a theory that rules out things that are contradicted by the evidence. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.