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).
“