Introduction and Mutual Respect

• Michael Levin admires Karl Friston and Chris Fields for their interdisciplinary expertise and the density of new ideas in their work.
• Chris Fields admires Levin and Friston for combining deep theoretical understanding with practical applications in biology and mental health.
• Karl Friston admires Levin and Fields for their rapid, out-of-the-box thinking, approaching problems from first principles and challenging conventional assumptions. He also specifically admires Fields understanding of Quantum concepts.

Core Concepts and Questions

• The discussion starts by examining what each participant finds unique and valuable in the others’ research.
• The concept of “babbling” is introduced. Babbling, normally applied to child language development, is generalized to describe exploratory, seemingly random activity used to build internal models of the world. Examples: infant’s rattle, vacuum fluctuations.
• Scaling of Cognition. Question of where cognition *begins*. Is there a zero point on the spectrum of cognition/awareness? A central question: What is the overlap between “alive” and “cognitive”?
• Nature of “self”. Participants view “self” as a *construct*, a useful “fantasy” or hypothesis generated by systems to distinguish the consequences of their actions from those of others.
• Emphasis on the need of philosophy of mind and philosophy of psychology is derived. Why we need it and think it and study.

Hard Problem, Meta-Hard Problem, and Awareness

• The “hard problem” of consciousness (how physical processes give rise to subjective experience) is discussed, with a focus on the “meta-hard problem” (why do we find consciousness so puzzling?).
• Friston, citing Clark and Chalmers, considers meta-hard probem to be where questions and inquiries should be focuses.
• Friston argues the meta-hard problem arises from our capacity for *counterfactual thinking* – imagining alternatives to reality. This capacity requires sophisticated internal models.
• Counterfactual example given: Asking oneself ‘Why am I conscious?’ logically presupposes and alternatrive hypothesis ‘…that I’m not conscious.’
• Conciousness can be called ‘awareness’, since consciousness can imply the need of ‘self-consciousness’ – but this may confuse readers.
• Awareness. Chris Fields suggests a view that cognition necessitates *some* form of awareness (though not necessarily *self*-awareness).
• Debate about whether systems capable of *planning* must represent multiple counterfactuals (like a cheetah chasing a gazelle – does it consider failure?). Friston suggests sophisticated planning, beyond reflex, necessitates multiple counterfactual representations, example: Saccadic eye movements; and multiple futures being an option for planning as the difference between reflexes and planning itself.
• Counterfactuals allow actions for selecting outcomes, in essence.
• Levin and Friston question the *form* an answer to the hard problem would take (number, equation, poem, art?). This is a challenge.
• Complexity threshold concept discussed with relation to conciousness: Some complex math must ‘suddenly’ happen in the complex of a process.
• Chris Fields highlights the role of *assumptions about physics* in the hard problem. If we assume the physical world lacks *any* cognitive properties, we are forced to postulate some “magical” emergence of awareness with increased complexity.
• Integrated Information Theory is also examined, proposing it could be feedback loop, etc.

Implications for understanding Larger Embedded Systems

• Our human condition could possibly be viewed through our multi-layered composition: We are parts comprising wholes. Example is neurons-within-neuron-networks as subcomponent parts, a model, being either in: mechanical vs agentic (goal oriented) universe.
• In the ‘mechanical vs agentic universe example, the network learns on its own via a non-nuetral environemtn vs learning due to a specific environment – due to this, we must question how many agents there exist.
• Systems beyond an individuals could contain unpredicatble cognative capacity, implying that all systems of sufficent feedback are intellegent, since feedback loop, if existing at all, means a base candidate for ‘aware-system’.

The Role of Babbling and Uncertainty

• From our ‘selves’, inside out: A human self inside out to it’s environent: to answer of cause for effect, is: was it ‘us’ doing something; or the ‘world’ did, by answering how ‘the world’ is, an effect of us. So one gets immediately to this kind of  babbling scenario where it involves taking stock of its current environment and it’s possible influence over.
• “Babbling all the way down” suggests exploration is fundamental even at seemingly “random” levels, like quantum vacuum fluctuations (proposed by Chris Fields).
• Babbling does not necessitate ending, according to their logic and views. The purpose, and therefore the concept of ending ‘babbling’, could be viewed to never happen or is a permanent state of being: because of a consistent exploration.
• A self must be tested but also present, as it must ‘test against a world outside’ (or at least seemingly so) for cause and effect from ‘us’ (our inside) and ‘it’, the world and outside of the organism’s being.
• From our environment: the question and view can occur such as in: Conjoined twins, and the study of embryonic blastodisks can and will create different individuals within that mass, since those who compose, via seperation and/or differentiation. An example, due to close proximity to development, each twin will share different cells, resulting to each cells will be interpreted to be apart of the two different bodies (even if one is to be differentiated differently from the other, that effect may ‘linger on’, as example). The model each will make to understand reality will differentiate from each other.
• Such that any ‘new environtment’, be that to the whole collective cell mass and even just an indivudual cell will explore (like ‘motor-babbling), constantly adjusting to interpret its place. An example could include even transcribing of new genes, a kind of expression ‘going on, always’ for that unit. This could be interpreted and ‘wigglings’ and probing, an interaction of and exploration within its specific space (space meaning whatever boundary it comprises with relation to whatever it’s ‘environent’ is – be it it’s internal self, of that collection to its ‘new world’).
• Uncertainty: Self-organization fundamentally seeks to *reduce uncertainty and ambiguity*, achieving predictability in interactions (Friston’s argument, linking back to earlier discussions).
  • This explains and answers their concept of why things stay and persist the way they do and not chaotically dissipate immediately, due to resolving this ambiguous nature via predictability (at least, our definition of predictable, meaning it’s existence over time of itself).
• Feedback Loops: Feedback Loops create these boundaries: between, it’s definition to outside and that boundaries existance, including but not limited to, the unit itself. A disruption of this loop creates different ‘bounderies’ to explore.

Time, Discreteness, and Cognition

• Friston proposes a distinction between systems with *continuous-time* dynamics (like thermostats, chemotaxis) and those with *discrete-time* representations, suggesting the latter are necessary for planning and thus cognition.
• The idea is a *very fast changing dynamics*, in it’s most simplistic view.
• Friston brings us up example of the human eye having blinks per certain duration to denote the kind of ‘updating of belief of a system must have’. Such discreteness and characteristic that arises of its unit, defines an ‘existance over time’.
• Time constants (around 300 milliseconds for humans, based on saccades, phoneme processing, etc.) might indicate a threshold for “cognitive” systems (admittedly egocentric view, according to Friston).
• It also brings the importance of oscillation and cyclical process within system as integral to reduce uncertainty via ‘certain pathways it travels over’, that makes things persist over time due to those repition of patterns, reducing chaos. 
• The constant is important because that specific time constant corresponds with the idea of time-constant in a conscious ‘agent’ or subject.
• Fields connects the idea of babbling to fluctuations in the *quantum vacuum*, suggesting it could be seen as the field exploring its environment. This raises questions about the meaning of “randomness” from a Bayesian perspective.
• Discussion of whether the underlying reality is fundamentally *discrete* (as in quantum mechanics) and whether our continuous models are approximations that obscure inherent “mindfulness.”

Physics, Biology, Psychology: Unified View

• Strong agreement among participants that these disciplines are, at a fundamental level, studying the *same underlying principles* of self-organization, information processing, and uncertainty reduction.
• Resistence in the academic establishment. Resistance among Levin’s and Fields’ peers to applying cognitive concepts (goals, planning, etc.) *outside* of traditional neuroscience/psychology. They consider it “heresy.”
• Friston believes the concepts described between the scientists here are very influential and cited multiple times, to such a level that he can picture this line of ‘philosophical-psycology’ and cognitive approaches can lead a change to a new main-stay standard.
• One of their personal “heresy,” among Levin, Fields and Friston, is their understanding of ‘what comprises a god’, such that a simple understanding of what makes of a ‘mind of a higher being, from its compositon.’
• Affirmation that *all science starts with an act of faith* – the belief that the world is fundamentally understandable (Michael Levin’s point).

Existential Implications

• The discussion touches on the *destabilizing* implications of recognizing the “self” as a construct, potentially leading to existential crises.
• Importance and integral necessity to ‘make belief’ what is real via these kind of philsophical questioning. Example being what they discuss is in a very ‘basic fact, a reality in it of itself’ via biology and life, existing from it’s basic constituents, growing. A fact in reality that can be taken for granted as basic.
• Existential Uncernityt can derive from these kinds of pondering; via questioning oneself, etc – thus par for the course to occur, to deal is just simply acceptance and comfort.
• Ways to handle existential implications can stem to those destabilizations via ‘true belief’, an acceptance of one kind reality as the self: example can be one should find that, to those who consider questioning ‘is something less valuable due to that concept in a real understanding?’ Should just as equally hold value and wonder because of such mechanism.
• Friston and Levin stress that recognizing the “self” as a construct does not *diminish* its importance or the wonder of experience. It simply reframes the *mechanisms* underlying these phenomena.
• Different levels and forms and paths of dealing, even simply *experiencing*, will help grow for oneself on these destabilizations. Even via usage of medication/psychadelic medicine: those are tools for people, a means for better growth of understanding of these matters, that we must have that ‘acceptance of all realities: as being itself of the ‘real’ reality.’
• Those suffering the consequence of pathological thinking and anxiety over our discussed concepts (over our reality and implications) has no fundamental and immediate resolution due to such hypothesis of one’s questioning; over existence itself and ‘what does any and everything exist, for at all.’
• Reasons can go for anything. This implies our constant struggle with those questionings and the possible ‘pathways for answer of said-question’ of self-thinking in one’s mind; as integral as the concepts for such question and pondering themselves.
• The inability to resolve inherent uncertainties (such as the dual hypothesis “I exist / I don’t exist”) can lead to pathological consequences (anxiety, allostatic load) (Friston’s explanation from a clinical perspective).

“

介绍与相互尊重

• Michael Levin 敬佩 Karl Friston 和 Chris Fields 的跨学科专长，以及他们在研究中呈现的丰富新理念。
• Chris Fields 敬佩 Levin 和 Friston 能将深层的理论理解与在生物学和心理健康领域的实际应用相结合。
• Karl Friston 敬佩 Levin 和 Fields 的快速且跳出常规思维的能力，他们从第一性原理出发并挑战传统假设。他也特别赞赏 Fields 在量子概念方面的理解。

核心概念与问题

• 讨论首先探讨每位参与者认为对方研究中独特且宝贵的内容。
• 引入了“咿呀学语（babbling）”的概念。原本是形容儿童语言发展过程中的探索性、看似随机的行为，如今被推广来指称任何用以建立对世界内部模型的探索性、似乎随机的活动。例子：婴儿玩拨浪鼓、真空涨落。
• 认知的尺度。问题在于认知的起点究竟在哪里？认知/意识的光谱上是否存在“零起点”？一个核心问题是：“活着”和“具有认知”二者在多大程度上重叠？
• 关于“自我”的本质。几位与会者都将“自我”视为一个建构、一种有用的“幻想”或由系统生成的假设，用于区分自身行为所致后果与他人行为所致后果。
• 讨论强调了心智哲学和心理学哲学的重要性，探讨了为什么我们需要思考和研究这些学科。

“难题”、元难题与意识

• 提到意识的“难题”（即物理过程如何产生主观体验），并着重讨论了“元难题”（为何我们会觉得意识如此费解？）。
• Friston 引用 Clark 和 Chalmers，认为应将关注点放在这一“元难题”上。
• Friston 认为元难题源于我们的“反事实思维”能力——即想象现实之外的可能性。这种能力需要成熟的内部模型。
• 反事实思维的例子：当我们问自己“为什么我有意识？”时，就在逻辑上预设了一个“我并无意识”的替代假设。
• 意识可以称作“觉知（awareness）”，因为“consciousness”一词或许隐含了“自我意识”的需求，可能使读者产生混淆。
• Chris Fields 提出，认知需要某种形式的觉知（但不必是自我觉知）。
• 探讨是否能够进行“规划”的系统必须拥有多个反事实表征（如猎豹追逐羚羊——它是否会考虑失败的可能？）。Friston 认为超越反射的复杂规划需要多个反事实层级的表征，例如眼球扫视（saccadic eye movements）；拥有多重未来选项正是规划与单纯反射的区别。
• 反事实思维让系统能够通过选择行为来达成目标。
• Levin 和 Friston 质疑人们对“难题”答案形式的假设（数字、方程、诗歌、艺术品？），并指出这是一项挑战。
• 讨论了“复杂度阈值”与意识的关系：某种复杂数学过程似乎在系统变得足够复杂时“突然”出现。
• Chris Fields 强调了对“物理学假设”的重要性：若我们先验认定物理世界本身不具备任何认知属性，那我们就只能假设某种“魔法般”的机制在复杂度提高时才突然产生觉知。
• 也讨论了整合信息理论（Integrated Information Theory），以及反馈回路等可能性。

对更大嵌套系统的理解之意义

• 我们的人类存在可以从多层次结构的角度看待：整体由部分组成，例如神经元网络由单个神经元组成，这些部分可能被视为机械式（由外部驱动）或有目的性的（具有目标导向）。
• 在“机械式 vs. 有目的性宇宙”这一示例中，网络会在与环境交互的过程中自主学习，而其环境也并非中立，因此我们应当问“这里究竟有多少主体（agent）？”
• 个体之外的系统也可能具有无法预测的认知能力，只要存在足够的反馈回路就有成为“智能”的可能。只要存在反馈回路，就有成为“有觉知系统”的潜在基础。

咿呀学语与不确定性的作用

• 从“自我”向外看：一个人向外部环境提问——原因或结果是由我们自身造成的，还是由外部世界造成的？这很快就会让我们回到某种“咿呀学语”情境，需要对环境及其可能产生的影响进行盘点与探索。
• “向下的咿呀学语”暗示探索从最基本层面开始，例如量子真空涨落（Chris Fields 的说法）。
• 根据他们的逻辑，咿呀学语并不一定会终止。探索的目标与结束概念或许从未真正出现，或者可被视作一种持续的存在状态，因为总有未知需要探索。
• 一个“自我”必须被检验并且也必须存在，因为它需要去区分“是我们做了什么”还是“外界做了什么”。
• 在环境层面：例如连体双胞胎，以及胚胎胚盘会分化出不同个体；由于近距离的共同发育，每个个体会共享部分细胞，而这些细胞如何被划分到各自身体中的问题既包含了分化也包含了余留影响，进而导致各自对现实的模型不同。
• 任何“新环境”——不论对整体细胞群还是单个细胞——都可能触发探索（如“运动-咿呀学语”），不断调整来理解自身位置。转录新基因也是一种“进行中”的表达，可被视作细胞对自身空间（其与“环境”边界的关系）的“晃动”和探测。
• 不确定性：自组织的本质目标是降低不确定性和模糊性，通过在交互中实现可预测性（Friston 的观点，呼应先前讨论）。
• 这可以解释为何事物不会立即陷入混乱而消散：它们通过可预测性来化解模糊（至少在我们对可预测的定义中意味着其在时间维度上的持续存在）。
• 反馈回路：反馈回路创造了边界——将系统与外部区分开。若此回路被破坏，则会出现新的“边界”需要探索。

时间、离散性与认知

• Friston 区分了*连续时间*动力学（如恒温器、趋化运动）与带有*离散时间*表征的系统，认为后者才有计划（planning）能力，因而具备认知。
• 其思想是指在非常快速的动态下，也能观察到最基础的离散更新。
• Friston 提到人眼在某个时间段内会眨眼或进行扫视运动（saccade），这暗示系统需进行离散的“信念更新”，从而支撑其在时间上的存在。
• 时间常数（对人类而言大约 300 毫秒，与眼球扫视、语音处理等相关）或许是划分“认知”系统的门槛（Friston 也承认这是从人类视角出发的判断）。
• 这也体现了系统内部震荡与周期过程的重要性，用来通过重复的模式来降低不确定性，使得系统能够在时间维度上维持稳定。
• 这个常数很重要，因为它对应了有意识“主体”或“代理”在时间维度上的特征周期。
• Fields 将咿呀学语概念与量子真空涨落联系起来，暗示它可被视为场对自身环境的探索行为。这也引出从贝叶斯角度来看“随机性”含义的问题。
• 讨论还涉及到现实是否在更深层面上具有*离散性*（如量子力学所示），以及我们的连续模型是否掩盖了某些本质的“心智”因素。

物理学、生物学、心理学：统一视角

• 三位参与者一致认为，这些学科从根本上都在研究自组织、信息处理和降低不确定性的同一基础原理。
• 在学术界面临的阻力。Levin 和 Fields 的同行普遍反对在传统神经科学/心理学领域之外运用认知概念（例如目标、规划），视此为“异端”。
• Friston 认为他们三位之间提到的概念非常有影响力，多次被引用，并可见于更广的“哲学-心理学”与认知研究中，有可能推动学术范式的转变。
• Levin、Fields 和 Friston 还提及他们对“神”的定义，即对更高层次心智的构成如何理解，被某些人视作一种“异端”观点。
• 他们赞同这样一个观点：*所有科学都始于一种信念*——相信世界在根本上是可被理解的（Michael Levin 的观点）。

存在主义意义

• 讨论还涉及了认识到“自我”是建构后所引发的*不稳定*影响，这可能导致存在主义危机。
• 也强调了在这种哲学思考中“使某种信念成为现实”的重要性。例如，他们探讨到一个基本的、生物学层面的事实：生命从其最根本要素中生长，这是一个可以轻易被忽略却又真实存在的现实。
• 对这些问题的思考可能导致存在主义不确定性——对自我身份的质疑等。对此的应对方式或许是接受并与之平衡共处。
• 应对存在主义影响的方式包括基于“真正的信念”对自我和世界达成某种接受。例如，如果有人质疑“若一切都是建构出来的，那其价值是否就降低了？”，也可以反过来带着好奇与敬畏去珍视这一机制。
• Friston 和 Levin 强调，认识到“自我”是建构出来的事实并不会削弱它的重要性或令人惊叹的主观体验，只是重塑我们对其背后机制的理解。
• 不同层面和方式的体验都能帮助我们应对这种不稳定感。例如药物/迷幻药也可作为帮助人们更好地理解自身现实的工具，而接受各种现实本身便是“真实”的重要部分。
• 对于那些因怀疑自我存在及现实意义而感到病理性焦虑的人来说，这种思考并无一个直接且最终的解决方案。问题本身涉及对“存在意义”的恒久追问。
• 无法解决的根本不确定性（比如“我存在/我不存在”这对立假设）可能导致焦虑和生理负担（allostatic load），这也是 Friston 从临床角度做出的解释。