Skip to content
Gallery
Math4Wisdom
Knowledge Engineering
M4W spaces
Investigations
Tools
Topics
Questions
Other Notes
Share
Explore
Andrius Kulikauskas: I am trying to understand Active Inference in terms of
Wondrous Wisdom
⁠
. Currently, for me, this means:
Understanding the mathematical procedure which implements Active Inference.
Developing good intuition about the conceptual foundations of Active Inference, namely - free energy, Bayesian inference, Markov blankets, entropy - and their origins in the theories of chemical reactions, kinetic theory of gases, statistical thermodynamics, Bayesian statistics and more.
Identifying key concepts in Active Inference with their counterparts in Wondrous Wisdom.
Expanding Wondrous Wisdom with mathematical formalisms and conceptual ideas from Active Inference.
I am focusing on studying the
textbook
⁠
, reading Wikipedia articles about related subjects, and learning from Daniel.

Conceptual bridges between
Active Inference
⁠
and
Wondrous Wisdom
⁠

In my learning, I find it very helpful to identify conceptual bridges between Active Inference and Wondrous Wisdom. This saves me a lot of “free energy” because I find it very taxing to invest myself in learning an independent subject which does not integrate with my personal intuition nor the language of wisdom that I have been documenting and developing.
The key difference to keep in mind is that Wondrous Wisdom models subjective human experience (phenomenology) and then projects that onto everything else. Whereas Active Inference models objectively observed behavior of systems such as brains and then supposes those models apply at all levels everywhere.

Action Perception Loop - Cognition Emotion Loop

The action perception loop at the heart of Active Inference matches with the dialogue of the answering and questioning minds in Wondrous Wisdom.
The environment is the answering mind, which is enmeshed with it and speaks for it, what it knows of it. The organism is the questioning mind, which is independent of the answering mind and asks about it, in the forms of predictive statements, thus models.
Perception (by which the environment communicates to the organism) is analogous to emotion (by which the answering mind speaks to the questioning mind, alerting it to inadequacies of its existing model).
Action (by which the organism adjusts the environment) is analogous to cognition (by which the questioning mind imposes its updated model upon the answering mind).
Surprise is a key concept in Active Inference, related closely to the free energy principle. The emotional theory of Wondrous Wisdom, related to the action perception loop, is based on expectation. It defines Surprise in terms of unmet expectations (of the questioning mind) but also Sadness (of the answering mind). Attempting to minimize sadness by gaming the system, expecting what we don’t wish, leads to unhealthy emotions: hate, anger, relief, depression and anxiety. Anxiety is the unhealthy form of Suspense, which is what we feel (with regard to the investigating mind) while waiting for the outcome of our expectation. Minimizing anxiety (and making way for Peace) is the proper basis for economics, whereas maximizing Happiness is an improper basis.

Three Minds

The Active Inference Textbook claims (2.7) that Active Inference pulls together enactive, predictive, cybernetic theories, which can be identified with the answering, questioning, investigating minds, as
here
⁠
.
Bayes theorem expresses the three minds as evidence, hypothesis, belief, see
here
⁠
.
Karl Friston has referred (
here
⁠
) to the three minds as sensory evidence, prior beliefs and control of balance.

Divisions of Everything

Active Inference posits that organisms face their fundamental existential challenge of existence, or in other words, they are all driven by the free energy principle. In Wondrous Wisdom, these are examples of the nullsome, modeling God.
The set of all states, and likewise their essence, the Markov blanket, are terms for everything, which is modeled by the onesome.
The distinction between environment and organism (internal model) is given by the twosome, whereby all is the same (from the environment’s point of view) or opposites coexist (from the organism’s point of view).
The learning cycle of taking a stand, following through, reflecting - the threesome - appears in the textbook and the community. In the theory, it is expressed as: existence, self-evidencing, enactive inference.
Bayes theorem expresses the foursome, the four levels of knowledge: whether (evidence E), what (likelihood H), how (posterior probability)(H | E), why (hypothesis)(E | H), as
here
⁠
.
Two perspectives of the fivesome (for decision making in space or time) appear as variational free energy (2.5 real-time unfolding), living a little bit ahead, as with effect (the near future) and expected free energy (2.6 planning and future), living a little bit behind, as with cause of effect (the near past). Where are the three other perspectives: cause (the distant past), effect of cause (distant future) and decision point (present)?
The ambiguity of entropy, whether a system is to be considered open or closed, expresses the two conceptions of slack (sevensome) in terms of increasing slack and decreasing slack, alternatively, grace (God does not have to be good) and justice (God is good).

4 Reservations

Wondrous Wisdom describes four eightfold frameworks by which the investigating mind relates the questioning mind and the answering mind. In each case, there are three perspectives by which the answering mind views the three minds, and three more perspectives by which the questioning mind views the three minds. There is one perspective (consciousness) by which the investigatory mind relates the other two minds, and another perspective (God) by which it stands on its own.
God wishes (goes beyond herself), whereas humans do not wish, thus have reservations.
God wishes for nothing, is self-sufficient, whereas humans have bodies with needs. The answering and questioning minds function in parallel without any channel connecting them.
God wishes for something, is self-sufficient, whereas humans have minds with doubts. The answering and questioning minds are linked by one channel.
God wishes for anything, is calm, whereas humans have hearts with expectations. The answering and questioning minds are linked by two channels.
God wishes for everything, is calm, whereas humans have wills with values. The answering and questioning minds are linked by three channels.
Mathematically, we get four equations that can be expressed in terms of the eight-cycle of divisions of everything (and perhaps Bott periodicity) by starting with the sixsome (for humanity as morality) and adding 0, 1, 2, 3 perspectives, accordingly, modulo 8. We have: (3+3) + 0 = 6, (3+3) + 1 = -1, (3+3) + 2 = 0, (3+3) + 3 = 1.

⁠
⁠
⁠

Seeking more bridges

Study the role of free energy in deciding whether a reaction occurs spontaneously or not, depending on enthalpy and temperature.

Approaching Active Inference appreciatively and critically

In my limited experience, Active Inference is the most interesting academic scientific theory of human experience, compared with the many other theories that are being proposed.
Active Inference articulates the noteworthy idea that there are two ways that a being may address the inadequacies of its models. It may update the models or it may adjust what is being modeled.
Active Inference expresses these two options with a unified mathematical formalism that is being used to build a variety of models.
The value of learning Active Inference is
Connecting with Daniel on a deep level, given his interest in me and Wondrous Wisdom.
Learning how the main idea of Active Inference is captured mathematically and connecting Wondrous Wisdom with that mathematics.
Drawing from the ideas of the disciplines that Active Inference builds upon, including chemistry, physics, biology, neuroscience, statistics, information theory and mastering concepts such as free energy and entropy.
Using the languages of Active Inference and Wondrous Wisdom to connect with all manner of theories of consciousness, as with the Theory Translator.
Participating in the Active Inference community to discover collaborators and funders for Wondrous Wisdom, Math 4 Wisdom, Econet and other endeavors.
Thinking critically
Active Inference may only have one good idea.
If I am not mistaken, as of yet, in any of the systems considered, there is no evidence of the reality of Markov blankets. The situation seems similar to the development of statistical mechanics before there was direct evidence of atoms. The idea of atoms could be used to give theoretical foundations for laws relating pressure, volume and temperature. But the electron was only discovered in 1899 and crude knowledge about the size of atoms came from Perrin’s calculations in 1908.
The idea that everything is made up of Markov blankets seems metaphysically limited, perhaps even more so than the idea that everything is made of particles. It seems to me like it is describing all things from the view of the questioning mind, which sees all things through the models it builds.
The Active Inference community, at this stage, from my limited perspective, is expansive, covering more ground, but not scientific, analyzing with greater clarity.
Specifically, Active Inference does not include the investigative mind, as some of its researchers seems to be pointing out. Active Inference does not describe the divisions of everything, which is to say, the well defined states or contexts that link the answering and questioning minds in 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 channels, as the investigating mind makes evident by clearing out prejudices and preconceptions. Active Inference does not consider how a system lets go of itself and rebuilds itself from scratch, which is essential for harmony.
Metaphysically, Active Inference has chutzpah and pretensions, which is fine. But it does not seem to explore its own conundrums. For example, if everything is Markov blankets, or if all things are states, then is there a state of all states? What is that all about? Active Inference doesn’t have to care because it is part of science, which doesn’t care, for science is only partial knowledge. Except that Active Inference is science only indirectly, inasmuch as evidence for Markov blankets can be construed indirectly from observations in neuroscience. Active Inference may lack self-inspection, self-accountability and self-criticality. Active Inference is a broad idea which yet hasn’t sought to circumscribe its own limits, where exactly should it apply and where not? It’s simply a new idea which is fortunate to have expansive proponents.

Testable Differences

Karl Friston describes autism (
here
⁠
) as a failure of attention attenuation and that to the extent that it happens early on, in severe cases, it means that autistic people can no longer` build up their deep lived models of the world, including their relationships with their mother, the notion of their distinction from other people, then they will never be able to develop these models. “A loss of central coherence.” In very severe cases, their model doesn’t include the notion of self as distinct from other.
Andrius Kulikauskas (
here
⁠
) understands autism to be the lack of a physical faculty, the sixth sense by which humans are able to arrange themselves harmoniously, tuning in to the group. A related skill is singing in harmony. These physical skills facilitated joint intentionality, which Michael Tomasello persuasively argues is what made us distinctly human. Autistic people for whatever reason, genetic or otherwise, fully or partially lack this sixth sense and thus find themselves physically unable to participate in society in the usual way. This means that they find themselves outside the wall of society with no way in. It does not mean that they do not have an inner life similar to ours. It rather means that their inner life may be socially independent from ours, much like my own inner life is independent of most people, but for other reasons.
The Kulikauskas model is rather compatible with the Friston model as they both speak of a failure of attention attenuation. But the Kulikauskas model is much more specific and says the failure could be alleviated with a brain implant, much like blindness could be. The Kulikauskas model makes sense of the full spectrum of autism, just as there is a spectrum of people who are fully blind or blind to various degrees in various ways. The Kulikauskas model explains that, just as with blindness, there is a maximal blindness but no more than that. Similarly, there is a maximal autism - a complete lack of the sixth sense - and some of these people are highly functional, compensating in remarkable ways, and others not at all. Certainly, autistic people are diverse and can have a range of other conditions which may have nothing to do with autism. Most importantly, the Kulikauskas model posits that there are maximally autistic people whose inner lives, their generative models, do not appreciably differ from other people’’s, just as with blind people. Nonautism (our sixth sense) is specific to humans and facilitated human evolution. Humans who lack this faculty are humans in every other way. Whereas all nonhumans are autistic, according to the Kulikauskas model. Orangutangs can enjoy consciousness, have very rich personal lives and dyadic relationships. What they lack and what humans have is joint intentionality, the ability to form teams contingently with a common cause and just rewards, which was facilitated by the sixth sense, and singing in unison.
The Kulikauskas model is rather peripheral to Wondrous Wisdom itself but, if true, would provide important evidence for Tomasello’s theory.

Questions

Andrius Kulikauskas: I am listing questions that say what I want to understand
What is free energy?
Relate the free energy principle, the maximum entropy principle, the principle of least action.
Distinguish John Harland’s four symmetry frameworks: Newtonian, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, unitary.
How do Bayesian statistics and prior beliefs enter the picture?
How to model, in Active Inference, the distinction between sadness, surprise and anxiety?

Key ideas to understand

Alternative futures allow for counterfactuals, policies, plans, sentience. Plans can be disambiguated by incorporating a prior belief into a model, that policies with the lowest expected free energy are the most plausible. (3.6)




Load content from www.math4wisdom.com?
Loading external content may reveal information to 3rd parties. Learn more
Allow
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.