Examining the Continuity between Life and Mind: Is There a Continuity between Autopoietic Intentionality and Representationality?

Phi fluctuates with surprisal: An empirical pre-study for the synthesis of the free energy principle and integrated information theory

The Free Energy Principle (FEP) and Integrated Information Theory (IIT) are two ambitious theoretical approaches. The first aims to make a formal framework for describing self-organizing and life-like systems in general, and the second attempts a mathematical theory of conscious experience based on the intrinsic properties of a system. They are each concerned with complementary aspects of the properties of systems, one with life and behavior, the other with meaning and experience, so combining them has potential for scientific value. In this paper, we take a first step towards such a synthesis by expanding on the results of an earlier published evolutionary simulation study, which show a relationship between IIT-measures and fitness in differing complexities of tasks. We relate a basic information theoretic measure from the FEP, surprisal, to this result, finding that the surprisal of simulated agents' observations is inversely related to the general increase in fitness and integration over evolutionary time. Moreover, surprisal fluctuates together with IIT-based consciousness measures in within-trial time. This suggests that the consciousness measures used in IIT indirectly depend on the relation between the agent and the external world, and that it should therefore be possible to relate them to the theoretical concepts used in the FEP. Lastly, we suggest a future approach for investigating this relationship empirically.

Does the metaphysical dog wag its formal tail? The free-energy principle and philosophical debates about life, mind, and matter

According to Bruineberg and colleagues, philosophical arguments on life, mind, and matter that are based on the free-energy principle (FEP) (1) essentially draw on the Markov blanket construct and (2) tend to assume that strong metaphysical claims can be justified on the basis of metaphysically innocuous formal assumptions provided by FEP. I argue against both (1) and (2).

Enough blanket metaphysics, time for data-driven heuristics

Bruineberg and colleagues criticisms' have been received but downplayed in the free energy principle (FEP) literature. We strengthen their points, arguing that Friston blanket discovery, even if tractable, requires a full formal description of the system of interest at the outset. Hence, blanket metaphysics is futile, and we postulate that researchers should turn back to heuristic uses of Pearl blankets.

Beauty and Uncertainty as Transformative Factors: A Free Energy Principle Account of Aesthetic Diagnosis and Intervention in Gestalt Psychotherapy

Drawing from field theory, Gestalt therapy conceives psychological suffering and psychotherapy as two intentional field phenomena, where unprocessed and chaotic experiences seek the opportunity to emerge and be assimilated through the contact between the patient and the therapist (i.e., the intentionality of contacting). This therapeutic approach is based on the therapist’s aesthetic experience of his/her embodied presence in the flow of the healing process because (1) the perception of beauty can provide the therapist with feedback on the assimilation of unprocessed experiences; (2) the therapist’s attentional focus on intrinsic aesthetic diagnostic criteria can facilitate the modification of rigid psychopathological fields by supporting the openness to novel experiences. The aim of the present manuscript is to review recent evidence from psychophysiology, neuroaesthetic research, and neurocomputational models of cognition, such as the free energy principle (FEP), which support the notion of the therapeutic potential of aesthetic sensibility in Gestalt psychotherapy. Drawing from neuroimaging data, psychophysiology and recent neurocognitive accounts of aesthetic perception, we propose a novel interpretation of the sense of beauty as a self-generated reward motivating us to assimilate an ever-greater spectrum of sensory and affective states in our predictive representation of ourselves and the world and supporting the intentionality of contact. Expecting beauty, in the psychotherapeutic encounter, can help therapists tolerate uncertainty avoiding impulsive behaviours and to stay tuned to the process of change.

An informal reconstruction of the free-energy framework, examining the conceptual problems that arise

Recent decades have seen increasing attention given to the free-energy framework. This proposes that many of the phenomena we associate with life, intelligence and adaptation can be explained in terms of a single, mathematical precept: the free-energy principle. This is claimed to apply to the adaptive behavior of primitive organisms as much as it does to the physiological structures of human brains. The proposal is potentially of interest to theorists from multiple disciplines. But as presentations often make intensive use of mathematical notation, it can be hard to understand, even for experts. The present article presents an informal reconstruction, using schematic illustrations. Mathematical notation is largely avoided, while detail and precision are retained as far as possible. The specifically conceptual problems that come to notice in the reconstruction are highlighted and discussed.

The Markov blanket trick: On the scope of the free energy principle and active inference

The free energy principle (FEP) has been presented as a unified brain theory, as a general principle for the self-organization of biological systems, and most recently as a principle for a theory of every thing. Additionally, active inference has been proposed as the process theory entailed by FEP that is able to model the full range of biological and cognitive events. In this paper, we challenge these two claims. We argue that FEP is not the general principle it is claimed to be, and that active inference is not the all-encompassing process theory it is purported to be either. The core aspects of our argumentation are that (i) FEP is just a way to generalize Bayesian inference to all domains by the use of a Markov blanket formalism, a generalization we call the Markov blanket trick; and that (ii) active inference presupposes successful perception and action instead of explaining them.