@micahgallen @neuroconscience care to weigh in/clarify?
-
-
Interesting debate! I'm at the pub with
@the_mindwanders now, so taking the easy route here and tagging@mjdramstead
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @micahgallen @evantthompson and
But from discussing the ergodicity issue with Karl, I think the gist of the response is that this is a kind of convenient mathematical assumption upon which not a lot rest. I.e., it's approximate ergodicity in a given domain that matters. But I'm not sure after three pints...
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @micahgallen @seanmcarroll and
Can the statistical properties of your pub-going behavior be deduced from a single sufficiently long (or short) random sample? Say hi to Jonny for me.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @micahgallen and
The ensemble distribution that defines humans surely assigns a high probability to states associated with socially / physiologically pleasing endeavours (such as pub-going). Ergocidity is only relevant at a certain levels of abstraction.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @a_tschantz @evantthompson and
A eukaryote might regularly find itself in the presence of a certain chemical (i.e. N-formylmethioninyl), but their ensemble distribution might assign a high probably to being in the presence of formyl peptides (of which 'N-formylmethioninyl' is a subset)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @a_tschantz @evantthompson and
Hey all! Both are right IMO. The FEP only models systems that are *locally ergodic, i.e., have a phenotype or attracting set. FEP doesn't model systems with (e.g.) historical change, only systems with conservative dynamics (so feudal France in 1400 but not the French revolution)
2 replies 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @mjdramstead @a_tschantz and
I agree with
@micahgallen, technically speaking, what's at play is only local or approximate ergodicity. I do think it's a fundamental assumption for the FEP because all the maths derives from the existence of a local random dynamical attractor, i.e., it's formulated at NESS.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @mjdramstead @a_tschantz and
When I hear
@mjdramstead present the view, I have a hard time seeing the gap between the view and something I’d think@evantthompson would like. When I read Friston, I see the gap. It seems to me that clarity about the role of social & biological constraints is the key issue...2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @a_tschantz and
Agreed. Karl's position has also evolved over the last decade, and the enactive, multiscale aspect is coming more and more to the fore. I'm writing a love letter of sorts to
@evantthompson right now, the subtitle of which is "Active inference is enactive inference" – stay tuned1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
I look forward to the letter!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.