1
|
Hemmatian B, Varshney LR, Pi F, Barbey AK. The utilitarian brain: Moving beyond the Free Energy Principle. Cortex 2024; 170:69-79. [PMID: 38135613 DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2023.11.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2023] [Revised: 11/28/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023]
Abstract
The Free Energy Principle (FEP) is a normative computational framework for iterative reduction of prediction error and uncertainty through perception-intervention cycles that has been presented as a potential unifying theory of all brain functions (Friston, 2006). Any theory hoping to unify the brain sciences must be able to explain the mechanisms of decision-making, an important cognitive faculty, without the addition of independent, irreducible notions. This challenge has been accepted by several proponents of the FEP (Friston, 2010; Gershman, 2019). We evaluate attempts to reduce decision-making to the FEP, using Lucas' (2005) meta-theory of the brain's contextual constraints as a guidepost. We find reductive variants of the FEP for decision-making unable to explain behavior in certain types of diagnostic, predictive, and multi-armed bandit tasks. We trace the shortcomings to the core theory's lack of an adequate notion of subjective preference or "utility", a concept central to decision-making and grounded in the brain's biological reality. We argue that any attempts to fully reduce utility to the FEP would require unrealistic assumptions, making the principle an unlikely candidate for unifying brain science. We suggest that researchers instead attempt to identify contexts in which either informational or independent reward constraints predominate, delimiting the FEP's area of applicability. To encourage this type of research, we propose a two-factor formal framework that can subsume any FEP model and allows experimenters to compare the contributions of informational versus reward constraints to behavior.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Babak Hemmatian
- Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA
| | - Lav R Varshney
- Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA
| | - Frederick Pi
- Department of Cognitive Science, University of California San Diego, USA
| | - Aron K Barbey
- Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA; Center for Brain, Biology and Behavior, University of Nebraska Lincoln, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abstract
The paper presents a model-based defence of the partial functional/informational segregation of cognition in the context of the predictive architecture. The paper argues that the model-relativeness of modularity does not need to undermine its tenability. In fact, it holds that using models is indispensable to scientific practice, and it builds its argument about the indispensability of modularity to predictive architecture on the indispensability of scientific models. More specifically to defend the modularity thesis, the paper confutes two counterarguments that lie at the centre of Hipolito and Kirchhoff's (2019) recent confutation of the modularity thesis. The main insight of the paper is that Hipolito and Kirchhoff's counterarguments miss the mark because they dismiss a few rudimentary facts about the model-based nature of dynamical causal models and Markov blankets.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Majid D Beni
- Department of Philosophy, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey; FELSEFE BÖLÜMÜ, Sosyal Bilimler Binasi, ODTU Üniversiteler Mahallesi, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No:1, 06800 Çankaya/Ankara, Turkey.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Safron A. The Radically Embodied Conscious Cybernetic Bayesian Brain: From Free Energy to Free Will and Back Again. Entropy (Basel) 2021; 23:783. [PMID: 34202965 PMCID: PMC8234656 DOI: 10.3390/e23060783] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2021] [Revised: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Drawing from both enactivist and cognitivist perspectives on mind, I propose that explaining teleological phenomena may require reappraising both "Cartesian theaters" and mental homunculi in terms of embodied self-models (ESMs), understood as body maps with agentic properties, functioning as predictive-memory systems and cybernetic controllers. Quasi-homuncular ESMs are suggested to constitute a major organizing principle for neural architectures due to their initial and ongoing significance for solutions to inference problems in cognitive (and affective) development. Embodied experiences provide foundational lessons in learning curriculums in which agents explore increasingly challenging problem spaces, so answering an unresolved question in Bayesian cognitive science: what are biologically plausible mechanisms for equipping learners with sufficiently powerful inductive biases to adequately constrain inference spaces? Drawing on models from neurophysiology, psychology, and developmental robotics, I describe how embodiment provides fundamental sources of empirical priors (as reliably learnable posterior expectations). If ESMs play this kind of foundational role in cognitive development, then bidirectional linkages will be found between all sensory modalities and frontal-parietal control hierarchies, so infusing all senses with somatic-motoric properties, thereby structuring all perception by relevant affordances, so solving frame problems for embodied agents. Drawing upon the Free Energy Principle and Active Inference framework, I describe a particular mechanism for intentional action selection via consciously imagined (and explicitly represented) goal realization, where contrasts between desired and present states influence ongoing policy selection via predictive coding mechanisms and backward-chained imaginings (as self-realizing predictions). This embodied developmental legacy suggests a mechanism by which imaginings can be intentionally shaped by (internalized) partially-expressed motor acts, so providing means of agentic control for attention, working memory, imagination, and behavior. I further describe the nature(s) of mental causation and self-control, and also provide an account of readiness potentials in Libet paradigms wherein conscious intentions shape causal streams leading to enaction. Finally, I provide neurophenomenological handlings of prototypical qualia including pleasure, pain, and desire in terms of self-annihilating free energy gradients via quasi-synesthetic interoceptive active inference. In brief, this manuscript is intended to illustrate how radically embodied minds may create foundations for intelligence (as capacity for learning and inference), consciousness (as somatically-grounded self-world modeling), and will (as deployment of predictive models for enacting valued goals).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam Safron
- Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA;
- Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
- Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sánchez-Cañizares J. The Free Energy Principle: Good Science and Questionable Philosophy in a Grand Unifying Theory. Entropy (Basel) 2021; 23:238. [PMID: 33669529 PMCID: PMC7922226 DOI: 10.3390/e23020238] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2020] [Revised: 02/08/2021] [Accepted: 02/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
The Free Energy Principle (FEP) is currently one of the most promising frameworks with which to address a unified explanation of life-related phenomena. With powerful formalism that embeds a small set of assumptions, it purports to deal with complex adaptive dynamics ranging from barely unicellular organisms to complex cultural manifestations. The FEP has received increased attention in disciplines that study life, including some critique regarding its overall explanatory power and its true potential as a grand unifying theory (GUT). Recently, FEP theorists presented a contribution with the main tenets of their framework, together with possible philosophical interpretations, which lean towards so-called Markovian Monism (MM). The present paper assumes some of the abovementioned critiques, rejects the arguments advanced to invalidate the FEP's potential to be a GUT, and overcomes criticism thereof by reviewing FEP theorists' newly minted metaphysical commitment, namely MM. Specifically, it shows that this philosophical interpretation of the FEP argues circularly and only delivers what it initially assumes, i.e., a dual information geometry that allegedly explains epistemic access to the world based on prior dual assumptions. The origin of this circularity can be traced back to a physical description contingent on relative system-environment separation. However, the FEP itself is not committed to MM, and as a scientific theory it delivers more than what it assumes, serving as a heuristic unification principle that provides epistemic advancement for the life sciences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Javier Sánchez-Cañizares
- Mind-Brain Group, Institute for Culture and Society, University of Navarra, 31009 Pamplona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hipólito I, Ramstead M, Constant A, Friston KJ. Cognition coming about: Self-organisation and free-energy: Commentary on Wright, J.J. and Bourke, P.D. (2020) "The growth of cognition: Free energy minimization and the embryogenesis of cortical computation". Phys Life Rev 2020; 36:44-46. [PMID: 32883601 DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2020.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2020] [Accepted: 08/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Wright and Bourke's compelling article rightly points out that existing models of embryogenesis fail to explain the mechanisms and functional significance of the dynamic connections among neurons. We pursue their account of Dynamic Logic by appealing to the Markov blanket formalism that underwrites the Free Energy Principle. We submit that this allows one to model embryogenesis as self-organisation in a dynamical system that minimises free-energy. The ensuing formalism may be extended to also explain the autonomous emergence of cognition, specifically in the brain, as a dynamic self-assembling process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Inês Hipólito
- Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Australia; Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, United Kingdom.
| | - Maxwell Ramstead
- Division of Social and Transcultural Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Canada; Culture, Mind, and Brain Program, McGill University, Canada; Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, United Kingdom
| | - Axel Constant
- Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Karl J Friston
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy (EMDR) is an effective treatment for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Adaptive Information Processing Model (AIP) guides the development and practice of EMDR. The AIP postulates inadequately processed memory as the foundation of PTSD pathology. Predictive Processing postulates that the primary function of the brain is prediction that serves to anticipate the next moment of experience in order to resist the dissipative force of entropy thus facilitating continued survival. Memory is the primary substrate of prediction, and is optimized by an ongoing process of precision weighted prediction error minimization that refines prediction by updating the memories on which it is based. The Predictive Processing model of EMDR postulates that EMDR facilitates the predictive processing of traumatic memory by overcoming the bias against exploration and evidence accumulation. The EMDR protocol brings the traumatic memory into an active state of re-experiencing. Defensive responding and/or low sensory precision preclude evidence accumulation to test the predictions of the traumatic memory in the present. Sets of therapist guided eye movements repeatedly challenge the bias against evidence accumulation and compel sensory sampling of the benign present. Eye movements reset the theta rhythm organizing the flow of information through the brain, facilitating the deployment of both overt and covert attention, and the mnemonic search for associations. Sampling of sensation does not support the predictions of the traumatic memory resulting in prediction error that the brain then attempts to minimize. The net result is a restoration of the integrity of the rhythmic deployment of attention, a recalibration of sensory precision, and the updating (reconsolidation) of the traumatic memory. Thus one prediction of the model is a decrease in Attention Bias Variability, a core dysfunction in PTSD, following successful treatment with EMDR.
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
The notion of a self-pattern, as developed in the pattern theory of self (Gallagher, 2013), which holds that the self is best explained in terms of the kind of reality that pertains to a dynamical pattern, acknowledges the importance of neural dynamics, but also expands the account of self to extra-neural (embodied and enactive) dynamics. The pattern theory of self, however, has been criticized for failing to explicate the dynamical relations among elements of the self-pattern (e.g., Kyselo, 2014; Beni, 2016; de Haan et al., 2017); as such, it seems to be nothing more than a mere list of elements. We'll argue that the dynamics of a self-pattern are reflected in three significant and interrelated ways that allow for investigation. First, a self-pattern is reflectively reiterated in its narrative component. Second, studies of psychiatric or neurological disorders can help us understand the precise nature of the dynamical relations in a self-pattern, and how they can fail. Third, referencing predictive processing accounts, neuroscience can also help to explicate the dynamical relations that constitute the self-pattern.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shaun Gallagher
- Department of Philosophy, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, United States
- Philosophy, Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | - Anya Daly
- School of Philosophy, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Bruineberg J, Rietveld E. Self-organization, free energy minimization, and optimal grip on a field of affordances. Front Hum Neurosci 2014; 8:599. [PMID: 25161615 PMCID: PMC4130179 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00599] [Citation(s) in RCA: 144] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2014] [Accepted: 07/17/2014] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
In this paper, we set out to develop a theoretical and conceptual framework for the new field of Radical Embodied Cognitive Neuroscience. This framework should be able to integrate insights from several relevant disciplines: theory on embodied cognition, ecological psychology, phenomenology, dynamical systems theory, and neurodynamics. We suggest that the main task of Radical Embodied Cognitive Neuroscience is to investigate the phenomenon of skilled intentionality from the perspective of the self-organization of the brain-body-environment system, while doing justice to the phenomenology of skilled action. In previous work, we have characterized skilled intentionality as the organism's tendency toward an optimal grip on multiple relevant affordances simultaneously. Affordances are possibilities for action provided by the environment. In the first part of this paper, we introduce the notion of skilled intentionality and the phenomenon of responsiveness to a field of relevant affordances. Second, we use Friston's work on neurodynamics, but embed a very minimal version of his Free Energy Principle in the ecological niche of the animal. Thus amended, this principle is helpful for understanding the embeddedness of neurodynamics within the dynamics of the system "brain-body-landscape of affordances." Next, we show how we can use this adjusted principle to understand the neurodynamics of selective openness to the environment: interacting action-readiness patterns at multiple timescales contribute to the organism's selective openness to relevant affordances. In the final part of the paper, we emphasize the important role of metastable dynamics in both the brain and the brain-body-environment system for adequate affordance-responsiveness. We exemplify our integrative approach by presenting research on the impact of Deep Brain Stimulation on affordance responsiveness of OCD patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jelle Bruineberg
- Amsterdam Brain and Cognition, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands ; Department of Philosophy, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands ; Department of Neurology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Leipzig, Germany
| | - Erik Rietveld
- Amsterdam Brain and Cognition, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands ; Department of Philosophy, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands ; Department of Psychiatry, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|