Whitehead and the Free Energy Principle: On the Physics and Metaphysics of Information
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 лют 2024
- another round of dialoging with Tim Jackson. We begin our dialogue discussing this paper: Di Paolo, E., Thompson, E., & Beer, R. (2022). 'Laying down a forking path: Tensions between enaction and the free energy principle.' In "Philosophy and the Mind Sciences," 3. doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.202... / philosophymindscience.org/ind...
at the midpoint now and you guys are brilliant. Thanks for all the details.
Great video! FEP is a mediation theory by a homeostat which seeks a balance. Balance implies two-sidedness (e.g., the two sides of the Markov blanket) of some sort that goes all the way down and up, making a cosmology. And a system of homeostats becomes necessary, because a single homeostat is not enough. But such a system is now in agreement with Arthur Koestler’s holarchy making each holon its own two-sided homeostat in the holarchy. You folks were smart to pick up on the implications of the FFP, together with the new biology that is now friendly with teleonomy and agential models. The convergence with a Whiteheadian view is likely to be sharp, I agree, and probably inevitable as the implications become more widely known. So yes, to the fine video! Cheers!
Excellent, wide-ranging conversation!
Couple points. Firstly, whiteheads idea that errors introduce novelty into the universe has much more room to run. Perhaps it is the essential source of not only novelty, but increased complexity as well. It may also provide a way to account for the arrow of time, since the asymmetry is characterized by loss of possibilities that were unrealized, i.e. loss of information.
Secondly, I'm surprised Peirce's concept of abduction was not brought up. On my reading, abduction is the logic of error making. If this can be more thoroughly related to Peirces semiotics, then an even more profound convergence could be had with whitehead, enactment, and fep.
Fully agreement about “error”. We will certainly get to abduction - parallels with the FEP have already been explored, but insufficiently (in the paper I’ve read, which are not exhaustive). This is the reason I wish to remain silent or vague on that subject until I’ve worked up a more rigorous treatment.
1:45:00 - nested hierarchies. I do think the term holarchy merits relevance in SPITE of Wilbur.
The original concept was from Koestler as I recall. I have not read him, as I do feel I have an intuitive grasp of the concept from reading TOO much Wilbur.
Matt, I think your suggestion to more critically consider what level to compare FEP to Whitehead’s system at, and to not necessarily just start with the ultimate level of concrescences, was keen. To me it requires even raising the question of how we want to relate Whitehead’s natural philosophy to his metaphysics, even though that’s opening a hornet’s nest of complications. But I think it makes sense to turn to societies. Here I would want to bring up a few other things from Whitehead. First, I think it really needs to be emphasized that for Whitehead by definition sociality and life are contrary properties. Something cannot be both social and living-or, at least, if it is, that’s because some parts of it are social and other distinct parts are living. This is just definitional, a matter of how he defines “life” and “society.” A society is the continuing exhibition of a defining characteristic _because it is being reproduced through conformal feelings of the causally efficacious past_. An actual occasion, on the other hand, exhibits life insofar as it has a spontaneity that is non conformal to the past. Further, within societies, I think we can make a distinction that is potentially very analytically powerful but also potentially likely to be treated as fanciful speculation. Namely, we can distinguish between purely physical societies, where the defining characteristic is transmitted via conformal pure physical feelings, and what Whitehead calls a “living person,” where the defining characteristic is transmitted via conformal hybrid prehensions. What makes the latter so distinct is that it thus doesn’t concern characteristics exhibited in the third-person spacetime continuum: it concerns characteristics exhibited in the more “introspectively” accessible mental pole of the past (and then felt conformally by one’s own mentality). Now this involves distinguishing between two kinds of observable data: third-person observable data capable of location in the mathematically defined spacetime continuum, and thus also capable of precise mathematical measurement, and the introspectively accessible data that isn’t exhibited in the external spacetime continuum around us and if measurable, measurable in a very different sense. Living persons are then also something like a bridge between the physical law one gets from purely physical societies and the spontaneity one gets from life. Maybe that’ll be taken as too strong of a dichotomy. I haven’t fully thought this through yet. But this opens a difference between the natural sciences that reason from third-person data and that set of sciences that reason from data that in some way is intrinsically mental: I might say this is where semiotics comes in, and “meaning.” Peirce intended semiotics to be definable only by its dependence on prior phenomenological concepts, after all. I’m sure many would find this unacceptably dualistic, but I think this at least is the kind of duality Whitehead took seriously and wanted to explore: namely, the dualities between the physical and mental, efficient causation and final causation, actual and potential. But what kind of data is something like FEP really reasoning from?
Finally, I have to say I think you were confused in your discussion of Whitehead’s theory of statistical vs non-statistical induction. He argues that statistical induction needs to “bottom out” with premises we can give nonprobabilistic reasons for believing, in order to then provide a probability, but this is still entirely distinct from a nonstatistical inductive argument. It is a nonstastistical inductive argument that then requires reference to God’s primordial nature. The premises Whitehead says are involved in statistical inductive arguments, and the reasons why we would accept said premises, don't directly involve God.
Perhaps we need a post modern physics. With apologies to the great Dr Feynman perhaps it is time to shut up the calculations and start intuiting.
Thank you for this, definitely worth the 2 hours. To be honest I’m listening in the early morning and fell asleep for most of the first hour and 20.
Enlightening discussion!
FEP recognizes the significance of "surprisal", or mismatch between anticipated information and actual information, and the brain/mind's desire to minimise this. The possible strategies for pursuing reduced information entropy/suprisal include:
A. Altering internal anticipation (self-change - R-brain awareness):
A1) improving awareness (sensation, perception, attention) in order to improve the information signal and meaningfully discriminate what is anticipated next. This is best done by reducing distraction, or by using tools/techniques to better focus our perception, such as using binoculars to get a better view.
A2) improve understanding/knowledge of the world, again to better anticipate the flow of events/experience. This includes education, training and experience relevant to the situation. This can allow better attuned attention, expanded awareness and mental flexibility to reduce surprisal, including by acceptance of the non-deterministic flow of things (possibility).
Either of these can improve our future effectiveness, with minimal impact on the world or increase in associated problems, but once achieved, A1 (change our minds) seems to provide the greatest gain with the least consequence - the process of self-growth.
B. Altering the world to fit our internal anticipation (L-brain):
A1) Use power and control to force the environment to conform to what is anticipated (desired). Social and technological coercion to change our environment can reduce the information mismatch, without any effort or need to change oneself, but requires constant application of force else the world/environment will "rebel" and return to the natural state in conflict with our internal model/belief-based anticipation. Furthermore, changing the world using coercive effort will have unanticipated and unwanted "side-effects" and externalities. For these reasons, it is problematic to reduce surprisal by using power/control to change the world. Note: this strategy can be described as coercive social/technical causes having determinist effect - the strategy of the modern Euro-industrial worldview.
A2) Use delusion, particularly erroneous self-fulfilling beliefs, to modify our model AND shape the world in ways that reduce surprisal. This is clearly problematic when the beliefs are antagonistic - creating enemies because we anticipate others will be enemies will reduce surprisal. This strategy could it be helpful if we anticipate positive relations (cycle of love), shaping the world in positive ways. I have wondered if more bizzare delusions, hallucinations or disordered thought/reason, could also be viewed as strategies to reduce "surprisal/entropy.
What is the project that Matt and Tim are talking about? And will Whitehead's Symbolism be a focus of your attention?Just curious. Thanks for the dialogues. Tim's take on Pierce is interesting.
Glitchy tech offers opportunity for self trickery as a good thing, simply allowing a mechanism that has addictive behavior traps to disintegrate and become so troublesome that one tends to avoid it; also, living in the boonies away from easy access to the "goodies" makes it easier to give up stuff, where more comes back and is ontologically finer if that's even possible. There's only so much one can give up though, yet by that time the individual is sufficient, has self responsibility, more focus etc. Also it's easier to follow the energy with older equipment since "ambient mode" and higher bit rates consume noticeably more energy and brings in an ethical concern if that energy use is frivolous and I'm complicit. UA-cam already has a huge market share and can't they be more responsible on that level too? Thanks for the show.
Realism and anti-realism discussion at 20 min, does for me offer a choice in what objects are which affects perception - or vice versa, the tools of senses for instance constrain into objects - and distinguishes between a sort of antagonistic epistemology affordance (part of that is the way the knowledge is recorded and if that energy is shared with the non-human) between that and what I think of as a complete object that has a lifespan and circular time that the parts of the object can realize as understanding, a choice of epistemology that is on a more statistical level.
If multiple instances of the same object, all suns in the galaxy are one sun in multiple expressions of its lifespan, there's one human object that dances with multiple expression that are each possible age, at once. Each perception or facet has free choice, the collective object has free will. Something like the universe is an object like a steam punk rounded submarine with light coming out of the portholes which could connect with other distant glows in the undifferentiated, unrealized ocean beyond black holes, to form a neural network I guess.
This way objects can persist in a changing framework, which seems to me like shells that fragment and form tubes which approximate shells as discs. Gabriel's trumpet where life is on the lip between area and volume, the solar system as fragmented shell trying to form a tube and ending up as disc where the next try re-positions the sweet spot to the Earth and the shell there (11.5 km thick) fragmented into facets of objects that try to form tubes, but are tubes as the GI tract.
Have you guys considered that the term you are seeking might simply be: "Awareness" ?
Regarding the issue of panexperientialism (panpsychism), information processing, and whether the term "experience" suffices for a neat sort of structural convergence of theories based on "natural language", which could facilitate broader public engagement (and transdisciplinary progress) - I have been considering the term "Awareness" as best for this.
Awareness is the term used to define and describe most other, more specific, related terms - such as conscious, consciousness, sensation, perception and attention. Yet none of these terms can be used to define Awareness, suggesting it is the fundamental concept/entity.
Awareness does not have the baggage the term "consciousness" has with regards to higher vs lower organisms, and can more readily be extended into the non-living realm.
I have wondered if Awareness might be a prerequisite for Relations, for how can there be any relation without some degree of Awareness of the other (at least for one side of the relation, if not both)?
Awareness is also the term used in Eastern spiritual and philosophical traditions as well as the mindfulness community.
Awareness seems to best fit Mc Gilchrist's R-hemisphere "take", while L-hemisphere "take" may be the directed Awareness subset (attention).
For all these reasons, I sugest we consider "Awareness" as the best term for this unifying transtheoretical concept in the realm of information and relations.
Webster's insludes the following definitions:
awareness
: the quality or state of being aware : knowledge and understanding that something is happening or exists
consciousness
: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
: awareness
: the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought
attention
: the act or state of applying the mind to something
: a condition of readiness for such attention involving especially a selective narrowing or focusing of consciousness and receptivity
sensation
: a mental process (such as seeing, hearing, or smelling) resulting from the immediate external stimulation of a sense organ often as distinguished from a conscious awareness of the sensory process
: awareness (as of heat or pain) due to stimulation of a sense organ
: a state of consciousness due to internal bodily changes
perception
: a result of perceiving : observation
: a mental image : concept
: awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation
: physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience
experience
: direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge
: the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
: practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity
: something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
I’m at 1:30:00, on the discussion of the primordial nature of god and eternal objects. Let me take an intuitive stab at articulating this question, in part in formed my my recent ‘groking’ of objective immortality and causal efficacy as per Hosinski.
The objective immortality of our structured causal efficacy perception is based on the geometrical mathematics (topological?) of relation operating in a statistically bounded chaos of fluidity and field in a Deleuzian ‘sense’.
This then is the full extent of the primordial nature of god operating across multiple interrelating fields.
Possibility is still infinite, but it is not an infinity of infinities.
Further, on total speculation, I ask myself does the expanding universe actually contain all of those (expanding) possibilities?
Carry on gentlemen, as it were and is.
The statistical view might go wrong since it's aligned with the powerful but austere penthouse view, in a person zipping up from the mezzanine then down to the garage in the express elevator, and the tool of recorded information repurposed. The actions of allowing and asserting in their respective epistemology misaligned in a Bayesian way when transposed between individual and state as the third attractor emerges. What might be on the individual level an imbalance between hemispheres McGilchrist style and no big deal, indeed making for a richer culture, is folded into collective power which is tremendous as opportunity. The dimensional shift of culture might describe it as a tool that's higher ontologically speaking than what it's measuring. Campfire circles using sticks from trees to bridge whole objects in the expansion and contraction of discs or facets where the sticks form as crystal vectors, two cones meeting as a spinning top with a belt of these facets moving inside each other. The corpus callosum as a place where the crystal stopped growing.
edit: the statistical view goes right in seeing harmful elements in culture in a way tied to science that help to preserve the culture. Alcohol becomes near beer for instance, keep the fun part of the party. The individual can relate to that.
at 45 min, yes the RR has shifted for me in seeing an all-human object with circular time, so I can look back with the help of stories and recorded knowledge to a person like Rosa Parks and realize her, the time and actions bounded by her and her relation to the all-human. I can think of a person in the future doing the same for me. Some people would call that person Jesus I think. Some would take a statistical view and project that forward, Hegel? So a dancing dragon of all ages at once with free will from the facets or scales having free choice, the antagonistic epistemology, and Ourobouros as circular time with understanding epistemology as the tube devoured into a disc, and the topological shift between at the person level.
Final comment: How might FEP and Whitehead share a concern with FREEDOM and Liberty, which since the enlightenment have been highly relevant to American ideas about politics, government, and "the pursuit of Happiness" ?
I think that the truly effective strategies for reducing information entropy, via improved/expanded Awareness of ourselves and others, ALSO appear to maximise Freedom and Happiness. On the other hand, the short-sighted strategies that seek to reduce surprisal through deterministic application of power/control can be viewed as the coercive root of Tyranny.
I have wondered if vague awareness of this may also looming in the background of our present circumstances, sensed by many but not properly seen or undestood, and leading to much conflict, blaming and talking past one-another. Power and control, especially via money and technology, are out of control in overly-industrialized America.
This perspective on the ideas you are grappling with has potential to shine a light on the flourishing effectiveness and appeal of propoganda, misinformation and deception of all kinds. It also speaks to the necessity of truth and understanding for a "proper" reduction of FEP surprisal. I think that finding ways to connect FEP, Whitehead and McGilchrist to this issue of Liberty v Tyranny may be a fruitful avenue to explore here in America. Keep up the Good work!
around 28 min I disagree because only sight, touch and sound are taken into regard and those are the least true in terms of real objects encountered, where that is thru olfactory and molecules shared between objects and objects in themselves, like the Sun is both shell and tube so is the molecule, possibly protein folding. This points directly to a masking of a sense which is profound in opening up the world beyond human, before the prefrontal in the pheremonal language of object affordance, an understanding epistemology of the complete object perceived. Whose nose is unstuffed and why are they stuffed in the first place? Who has more power, the clever ones with their antagonistic epistemology transcribed in favor of that riding the human? Who doesn't need to know the clever bits to go to Mars, that's our job.
edit: at 30 min again I disagree because the olfactory significance is sidestepped in favor of moving to antagonistic epistemology, from observing, understanding, whole object affordance which is allowing action orientated rather than asserting. Allowing permits the shedding of that which is not needed, simply don't do the harm and the world unfolds.