Dr. MAXWELL RAMSTEAD - The Physics of Survival

I didn't get this the first viewing, making more sense second time around. One of the few long form channels I'll enjoy watching again. 🙏👍

Thanks for the delightful treat you have prepared this Sunday ❤

The whole part trying to explain the FEP could be better summarized by a musical concept - Harmony. Things that exist together must harmonize. That's what representing a part of the outside systen in your system means. Or so I would propose.

Great video - Thanks MLST! A multi domain consolidation point, a useful framework with associated terminology, tools and standards to enable the creation of complex, context understanding systems that are transparent !

Piaget was trying through Genetic Epistemology to bridge the gap from physics through biology to intelligent agents. A single epistemological framework that would unite emergent proprieties and explain how knowledge, agency and concepts can form that relate back to Reality. The FEP might just be the basis for such a neo-Materialism through a natural epistemology, where knowledge and agents are not separate, but an intrinsic part of Nature.

solid discussion!

1:50:00 💓 "At the heart of every boundary is infinity, of which is boundless." In the Tillichian sense, utilizing what can be considered a hypergraph to point towards the approximate value of 0, while simultaneously conceptualizing the position of the computational limit, which is functionally referred to as a holographic screen providing an image of the object within what would mathematically be described as a Markov blanket, is difficult but fundamental. There is so much to say about this topic, but for now, I would like to share two numbers that really stand out to me. One is 10¹⁵, and perhaps the most difficult number to model of all is 0. it becomes evident that accepting approximation is intrinsic to the modeling process." Further contemplation... Holographic Screen over the Boundary of Unisonant Mind HS²/BU² Utilising the novel algebraic calculus of Intellidoscope we can construct the following formula: •(()())• the balance nested parentheses provide a syntactic framing. Let "XZY+Q" be coordinates, Let "H" be Holographic, "S" be Screen, "B" be boundary and "U" be Unisonant Mind. •X h(s z qb(u ) Z ( U)BQ z S)H Y• Progressing towards a conclusion: "H" has come to symbolise many different things from heat to holographic and even the Heart in it's most quintessential context. And although some forms of infinity remain undisclosed through our modelling we can still point towards them. That said there is an aspect of infinity somewhat disclose to us in that we can reasonably conclude there is a holistic and although we cannot fully fathom it's extent we can acknowledge it's temporalitie and dimensionality. d7•X d6 ( zd5 q(d1d2) Zd5 (d3 D4)Q zd5 ) d6 Y•d7 "To truly know something we must enter into it

Absolutely fascinating interview and my first exposure to this amazing FEP stuff- was encouraged towards the end of the interview that it could lead to interpretable ( interrogable? ) neural nets - AIs' etc - in the future

I’m in Target looking at blankets.

Sesquipedalian and I love it! 😃

I am fascinated! This seems, (as Dr Ramstead rather derisively implied with his comment about the EU AI law,) to be the only way to actually reason about correctness. Even if not, it sure beats playing RHLF whack-a-mole. I now have a bunch of reading to catch up on. I see shades of Jeff Hawkins work here too, at least in spirit. Interesting theory on qualia too. I kinda have a 'suspicion' that you are right about that, but I'm too naive in the theory to be able to justify that thought.

Could this be related in some way to the RDoC (research domain criteria), deployed in the national institute for mental health for more broad mental health queries?

How great this video was! I had no idea that MAxwell was Prof. Friston's PhD student!!! A quick question for you guys: At 13:20, does 'tracking' refer to tracking the ever-escaping expected posterior out there in the world, by capturing the dynamics of the world? More technically, through the generalised coordinates of motion? If so, it makes sense to me, since if I can track the world around me, then I can predict my sensations, and if I can do that, then it means I can actively and dynamically update my generative model of the world. Is this accurate? Thanks.

Interesting 🙏

How is this notion different from enthalpy?

The problem i have with the free energy principle is that its draws heavy on schools in cybernetics but never angelogenes it, yes I look at you sir ...

The FEP is new in its mathematical symbolic formulation. It was, however, a hot topic of debate among ‘mystics’ for millennia. My favorite encoding is the Toltec one, but the maps co-align if you know mmm the principal. BTW, from this POV the FEP amounts to having everything figured out with one notable exception - the sort of blankets that define an agent necessarily come in pairs. This is a crucial point, pun intended. Outer blankets define an agent’s boundaries while providing a certain degree of self-reflection for free. That’s a part the FEP crowd figured out in an amazing fashion. Brilliantly done!!! Maybe you are on to it, and I never came across (or did not recognize) this idea in the FEP ecosystem, but the Toltecs emphasize it to no end, so I will mention it because I agree. It is worth emphasizing - An outer blanket is coupled, necessarily, with an inner blanket, which is (under normal circumstances) way smaller. A point, if you wish. The inner blanket acts (necessarily) as the point where (drumroll, please) awareness is assembled. Accordingly, it is referred to as “the assemblage point”, for short. Think of it as a kind of shorthand to a serialization of the state the agent is in, if you wish, giving rise to coherence, continuity, and (with some help from ‘the outside’) awareness. Put another way, one implication of the whole being less than its parts is that the whole hides a virtually endless number of islands (of stability). Each island defines other possible wholes hidden from view in plain sight. What defines the (consistency of the) whole is a specific entanglement of free variables which creates the view, the active model, which the whole gets to experience from the inside. Each island is a possible position of the AP. If the AP moves to a different position (in relation to the outside blanket) the result is a completely different, yet completely coherent, perception of ‘reality’. Systems that have an AP at the same place, relative to their outer blankets, share features and may communicate. We all share the same place of our APs, and hence we all agree about the features of ‘physical reality’. According to those guys, from way back when, the FEP can and should be modeled as a map containing 4 aspects of (any system’s) being - Actions, generally placed in the north, represent the blankets from the outside. Rules/Reason, generally placed in the east, represent a serialization of the blankets and their interdependence (as a hypergraph). Resources/Options, generally placed in the south, represent the blankets from the inside. Intent, generally placed in the west, represent the interface between levels of abstraction. That’s an amazingly powerful ontology, in conjunction with some added rules of thumb, most notably the existence of the AP. The ontology is considered ‘energetically irreducible’, as far as we can tell, so it is the gold standard that may be used by modern ‘shamans’ to make dealing with the abstract, with awareness itself, fit our human concepts, sort of. That’s probably way more than is reasonable for a YT comment. :) Wow. Amazing work!!! What a great episode!

I got to 1:44... " Marketing Idealists." [ Young, material, marketing idealists. ] What basis of evidence have you provided? (Perhaps it's in the portion past 1:44...but 'I doubt it.')

reads the title me, before watching the episode: "This is giving me some Lotka vibes. Did MLST get some physical biology in?" Excited to see this episode.

Regarding consciousness discussed at the closing stages of the video. Clearly, addressing consciousness within the FEP is in a speculative stage, which is no different than the stage consciousness is in by any other approach. I would still like to hear more discussion of consciousness. What is its function. Display was discussed, but what is the purpose of that display? Why consciousness, at all? ... Is consciousness a computational component of the human system? Bone, muscle, and sinew are not computational components. Is consciousness non-computational like those? If so, the FEP could never explain qualia because FEP is strictly a computational model. Does explaining consciousness even lend itself to an objective approach given that it only exists as a subjective phenomenon?