• Modeling the third mind - cybernetic mind - as choosing among the other two minds.

• Active Inference inherits from a f­ree energy princi­ple that equates existence with self-­evidencing and self-­evidencing with an enactive sort of inference.
• Imagine a ­simple creature that must solve prob­lems like finding food or shelter. When cast as Active Inference, the creature’s prob­lems can be described in enactive terms, as acting to solicit preferred sensations (e.g., food-­related sensations). To the extent that t­hese preferred sensations are included (as prior beliefs) in its generative model, the organism is effectively gathering evidence for its model—or, more allegorically, for its existence (i.e., maximizing model evidence or self-­evidencing). This ­simple princi­ple has ramifications for psychological functions traditionally considered in isolation, such as perception, action control, memory, attention, intention, emotion, and more. For example, perception and action are both self-evidencing, in the sense that a creature can align what it expects, given its generative model, with what it senses e­ ither by changing its beliefs (about the presence of food) or by changing the world (soliciting food-­related sensations).
  • Here the third mind chooses whether to update beliefs (implementing the second mind) or to update the world (implementing the first mind).

• How does it reconcile them?
  • Active Inference inherits from a f­ ree energy princi­ple that equates existence with self-­evidencing and self-­evidencing with an enactive sort of inference.

Will present a model that does reconcile these conflicting theories. The three minds.

Will show how to mathematically model that with super division algebras and Bott periodicity.

• Open problem: "By connecting dif­fer­ent perspectives, Active Inference can potentially help us understand how they illuminate one another."

Will present a model that does reconcile these conflicting theories.

Will show how to mathematically model that.

Will relate that to active inference.

• Active Inference inherits from a f­ ree energy princi­ple that equates existence with self-­evidencing and self-­evidencing with an enactive sort of inference.

Modeling three kinds of inference - enactive, predictive, cybernetic - with super division algebras and Bott periodicity

Active Inference textbook notes how this theoretical framework reconciles conflicting theories of sentience - enactive, predictive, cybernetic.

How does it reconcile them?

Relate them to three minds.

Model them with super division algebras and Bott periodicity.

Note

• Analyze other talks on applied Active Inference.

Mathematically modeling enactive answers, predictive questions and cybernetic investigations with super division algebras and Bott periodicity

• Human Condition in the Anthropocene Siūlyti iki rugsėjo 10 d.

Intellectual history juxtaposes yin and yang, intuition and rationality, fast-thinking System 1 and slow-thinking System 2. Various thinkers include the third faculty of self-knowing wisdom: Plato (epithumetikon, thumetikon, logistikon), Aristotle (rhetoric, logic, dialectic), Confucius (duty, laws, virtue), Xun Kuang (wandering, focused, empty minds), St.Paul (carnal, soulish, spiritual people), Spinoza (experience, reason, intuition), Montesquieu (judicial, executive, legislative powers), Kant (judgment, practical reason, pure reason), Peirce (oneness, twoness, threeness), Arendt (labor, work, action). Beauty, goodness and truth enchant these minds, respectively.

Metaphysically, we introspect a mind that unconsciously knows answers, a mind that consciously does not know, thus questions, and a mind (consciousness) which investigates, relating questions and answers, matching what we know and what we do not know, choosing to proceed consciously or unconsciously.

Active Inference (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) claims to reconcile conflicting theories of sentience: enactive, predictive and cybernetic. We argue that this conflict of perspectives, internal to human experience, yet transforming the cosmos, characterizes the humanlike condition. We distill this conflict metaphysically, position within evolution, trace throughout intellectual history, and model mathematically.

The symmetries of mathematics itself, the classification of super division algebras, may well model a mind, its contextualization, its self-relation, and how these three act on an eight-cycle of mental states, "divisions of everything", manifesting Bott periodicity.

The symmetries of mathematics itself, the classification of super division algebras, may well model a mind, its contextualization, its self-relation, and how these three act on an eight-cycle of mental states, manifesting Bott periodicity.

The symmetries of mathematics itself, the classification of super division algebras, can model a mind, its contextualization, its self-relation, and how these three act on an eight-cycle of mental states, manifesting Bott periodicity.

The symmetries of mathematics itself, the classification of super division algebras, can model a mind, its contextualization and its self-relation, and how these three act on an eight-cycle of mental states, manifesting Bott periodicity.

Active Inference (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) claims to reconcile conflicting theories of sentience: enactive, predictive and cybernetic. We argue that this conflict of perspectives, internal to human experience, yet transforming the cosmos, characterizes the humanlike condition. We distill this conflict metaphysically, recognize within evolution, trace throughout intellectual history, and model mathematically.

Metaphysically, we introspect a mind that unconsciously knows answers, a mind that consciously does not know, thus questions, and a mind (consciousness) which investigates, relating questions and answers, matching what we know and what we do not know, choosing to act consciously or unconsciously.

In evolution, the embodied mind is likewise the disembodying mind. An organism devotes resources to model what it knows but also what it does not know. Why do advanced brains have two hemispheres? They allow for dialogue between an advocate of a network of millons of assertive neurons, enmeshed in the world, and an advocate of a language of thousands of inquiring concepts, divorced from the world. Bridging this gap are sparks of a fleeting yet self-establishing humanlike consciousness.

Intellectual history juxtaposes yin and yang, intuition and rationality, fast-thinking System 1 and slow-thinking System 2. Various thinkers include the third faculty of self-knowing wisdom: Plato (epithumetikon, thumetikon, logistikon), Aristotle (rhetoric, logic, dialectic), Confucius (duty, laws, virtue), Xun Kuang (wandering, focused, empty minds), St.Paul (carnal, soulish, spiritual people), Spinoza (experience, reason, intuition), Montesquieu (judicial, executive, legislative powers), Kant (judgment, practical reason, pure reason), Peirce (oneness, twoness, threeness), Arendt (labor, work, action). Beauty, goodness and truth entice these minds, respectively.

In evolution, evidence for the embodied mind likewise supports the disembodying mind. An organism devotes resources to model what it knows but also what it does not know. Why do advanced brains have two hemispheres? They allow for dialogue between an advocate of a network of millons of assertive neurons, enmeshed in the world, and an advocate of a language of thousands of inquiring concepts, divorced from the world. Bridging this gap are sparks of a fleeting yet self-establishing humanlike consciousness.

Intellectual history is replete with the tension between yin and yang, intuition and rationality, fast-thinking System 1 and slow-thinking System 2. Various thinkers include the third faculty of self-knowing wisdom: Plato (epithumetikon, thumetikon, logistikon), Aristotle (rhetoric, logic, dialectic), Konfucius (duty and shame, laws and punishments, virtue and propriety), Xun Kuang (wandering, focused, empty minds), St.Paul (carnal, soulish, spiritual people), Spinoza (experience, reason, intuition), Montesquieu (judicial, executive, legislative powers), Kant (judgment, practical reason, pure reason), Peirce (oneness, twoness, threeness), Arendt (labor, work, action). These three minds are drawn by beauty, goodness and truth, respectively.

The mathematics of the symmetries within mathematics, as in the classification of super division algebras, can model a mind, its contextualization and its self-relation, and how these three act on an eight-cycle of mental states, manifesting Bott periodicity.

The Active Inference textbook (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) claims to reconcile conflicting theories of sentience: enactive, predictive and cybernetic. We argue that this conflict of perspectives, internal to human experience, yet transforming the cosmos, characterizes the humanlike condition. We distill this conflict metaphysically, identify within evolution, trace throughout intellectual history, and model mathematically.

Metaphysically, we introspect a mind that unconsciously knows answers, a mind that consciously does not know, thus questions, and a mind (our full fledged consciousness) which investigates, relating questions and answers, matching what we know and what we do not know, then choosing when to act consciously rather than unconsciously.

The mathematics of the symmetries within mathematics, as in the classification of super division algebras, can model a mind, its contextualization and its self-relation, and how all three act on an eight-cycle of mental states, manifesting Bott periodicity.

Intellectual history is replete with personalities who distinguished the tension between yin and yang, intuition and rationality, fast-thinking System 1 and slow-thinking System 2 (in the words of Kahneman). Various thinkers include the third faculty of self-knowing wisdom: Plato (epithumetikon, thumetikon, logistikon), Aristotle (rhetoric, logic, dialectic), Konfucius (duty and shame, laws and punishments, virtue and propriety), Xun Kuang (wandering, focused, empty minds), St.Paul (carnal, soulish, spiritual people), Spinoza (experience, reason, intuition), Montesquieu (judicial, executive, legislative powers), Kant (judgment, practical reason, pure reason), Peirce (oneness, twoness, threeness), Arendt (labor, work, action). These three minds are drawn by beauty, goodness and truth, respectively.

Abstrakčiausioje matematikoje, kur iškyla pačioje matematikos kalboje slypinčių simetrijų apibūdinimas, būtent supersimetrijų klasifikavime, atsiveria šių trijų protų modeliavimo galimybės.

Metaphysically, we may introspect within ourselves a mind that unconsciously knows answers, a mind that consciously does not know, thus questions, and a mind (our full fledged consciousness) which investigates, willfully and deliberately, relating questions and answers, matching what we know and what we do not know, then choosing, willfully, deliberately, when to act consciously rather than unconsciously.

The Active Inference textbook (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) claims that this theoretical framework reconciles conflicting theories of sentience: enactive, predictive and cybernetic. We argue that this conflict of perspectives, internal to human experience, yet imposing itself upon the cosmos, characterizes the humanlike condition. We specify this conflict by distilling it metaphysically, identifying it in evolutionary biology, tracing it in intellectual history, and modeling it mathematically.

Intellectual history is replete with personalities who distinguished the tension between yin and yang, intuition and rationality, fast-thinking System 1 and slow-thinking System 2 (in the words of Kahneman).

The Active Inference textbook (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) claims that this theoretical framework reconciles conflicting theories of sentience: enactive, predictive and cybernetic. We argue that this conflict of perspectives, internal to human experience, yet imposing itself upon the cosmos, characterizes the humanlike condition. We specify it by distilling it metaphysically, identifying it in evolutionary biology, tracing it in intellectual history, and modeling it mathematically.

In evolution, the evidence for the embodied mind is likewise evidence for the disembodying mind. An organism devotes resources to model what it knows but also what it does not know. This suggests why advanced brains have two hemispheres. There is a need for dialogue between an advocate of a network of millons of assertive neurons, enmeshed in the world, and an advocate of a language of thousands of inquiring concepts, divorced from the world. Bridging this gap are the sparks of a fleeting yet self-establishing humanlike consciousness.

In evolution, the evidence for the embodied mind is likewise evidence for the disembodying mind. An organism devotes resources to model what it knows but also what it does not know. This suggests why advanced brains have two hemispheres. There is a need for dialogue between an advocate of a network of millons of assertive neurons and an advocate of a language of thousands of interrogative concepts. Bridging this gap are the sparks of a fleeting yet self-establishing humanlike consciousness.

Intellectual history is replete with personal

Metaphysically, we may introspect within ourselves a mind that unconsciously knows answers, a mind that consciously does not know, thus questions, and a mind (our full fledged consciousness) which investigates, willfully and deliberately, relating questions and answers, matching what we know and what we do not know, and choosing, willfully, deliberately, when to act consciously rather than unconsciously.

Metaphysically, we may introspect within ourselves a mind that unconsciously knows answers, a mind that consciously does not know, thus questions, and a mind (our full fledged consciousness) which investigates, willfully and deliberately, relating questions and answers, matching what we know and what we do not know, and choosing, willfully, deliberately, what to implement unconsciously and what consciously.

Metaphysically, we may introspect within ourselves a mind that unconsciously knows answers, a mind that consciously does not know, thus questions, and a mind (our full fledged consciousness) which investigates, willfully and deliberately, relating questions and answers, matching what we know and what we do not know

The Humanlike Condition - Enactive Answers, Predictive Questions, Cybernetic Investigations

The Active Inference textbook (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) claims that this theoretical framework reconciles conflicting theories of sentience: enactive, predictive and cybernetic. This conflict of perspectives, internal to human experience, yet imposing itself upon the cosmos, characterizes the humanlike condition. We specify it by distilling it metaphysically, identifying it in evolutionary biology, tracing it in intellectual history, and modeling it mathematically.

The Humanlike Condition - Enactive Answers, Performative Questions, Cybernetic Investigations

Metaphysically, we may introspective within ourselves a mind that unconsciously knows answers, a mind that consciously does not know, thus questions, and a mind (our full fledged consciousness) which investigates, willfully and deliberately, relating questions and answers, matching what we know and what we do not know

The Active Inference textbook (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) claims that this theoretical framework reconciles conflicting theories of sentience: enactive, performative and cybernetic. This conflict of perspectives, internal to human experience, yet imposing itself upon the cosmos, characterizes the humanlike condition. We specify it by distilling it metaphysically, identifying it in evolutionary biology, tracing it in intellectual history, and modeling it mathematically.

Introspectively, we may distinguish within ourselves three minds.

The Humanlike Condition - Enactive, Performative, Cybernetic

The Active Inference textbook (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) claims that this theoretical framework reconciles conflicting theories of sentience: enactive, performative and cybernetic. This conflict, internal to human experience, yet imposing itself upon the cosmos, characterizes the humanlike condition. We specify it by distilling it metaphysically, identifying it in evolutionary biology, tracing it in intellectual history, and modeling it mathematically.

The Active Inference textbook (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) claims that this theoretical framework reconciles conflicting theories of sentience: adaptive, performative and cybernetic. This conflict, internal to human experience, yet imposing itself upon the cosmos, characterizes the humanlike condition. We specify it by distilling it metaphysically, identifying it in evolutionary biology, tracing it in intellectual history, and modeling it mathematically.

The Active Inference textbook (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) notes that this theoretical framework reconciles conflicting theories of sentience: adaptive, performative and cybernetic. This conflict, internal to human experience, yet imposing itself upon the cosmos, characterizes the humanlike condition. We specify it by distilling it metaphysically, identifying it in evolutionary biology, tracing it in intellectual history, and modeling it mathematically.

The Active Inference textbook (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) notes that this theoretical framework reconciles conflicting theories of sentience: adaptive, performative and cybernetic. This conflict, internal to human experience, yet imposing itself upon the cosmos, characterizes the humanlike condition. We specify it by distilling it metaphysically, placing it in evolution, tracing it in intellectual history, and modeling it mathematically.

The Active Inference textbook (Parr, Pezzulo, Friston, 2022) notes that this theoretical framework reconciles conflicting theories: adaptive, performative and cybernetic.

The Humanlike Condition - Adaptive, Performative, Cybernetic

The Active Inference textbook ( 2022) notes that this theoretical framework unites and extends conflicting theories: adaptive, performative and cybernetic.

Hannah Arendt

The Human Condition - Adaptive, Performative, Cybernetic

Anthropocene

The Active Inference textbook ( 2022) notes that this theoretical framework unites and extends conflicting theories: adaptive, performative and cybernetic.

Žmogaus vidiniai prieštaravimai leidžia įžvelgti ir išskirti jojo pasąmonę, sąmonę ir jas derinančią savimonę. Šį trijų protų išsiskyrimą galima paaiškinti metafiziškai, taip pat gamtos raidos dėsniais. Išsiskyrimas vis naujai iškyla kultūros istorijoje ir yra išsakomas aukštąja matematika. Trimis protais suprantame įtampą tarp gamtos (pasąmonės) ir kultūros (sąmonės) ir jų derinančios savimonės.

Žmogaus vidiniai prieštaravimai leidžia įžvelgti ir išskirti jojo pasąmonę, sąmonę ir jas derinančią savimonę. Šį trijų protų išsiskyrimą galima paaiškinti metafiziškai, taip pat gamtos raidos dėsniais. Jisai vis naujai iškyla kultūros istorijoje ir yra išsakomas aukštąja matematika. Trimis protais suprantame įtampą tarp gamtos (pasąmonės) ir kultūros (sąmonės) ir jų derinančios savimonės.

Abstrakčiausioje matematikoje, kur iškyla pačioje matematikos kalboje slypinčių simetrijų apibūdinimas, būtent supersimetrijų klasifikavime, atsiveria šių trijų protų modeliavimo galimybės.

Gamtos raidoje organizmai skiria dalį išteklių modeliuoti pažįstamus reiškinius ir dalį išteklių modeliuoti nepažįstamus reiškinius. Tad galima suprasti kodėl smegenyse iškyla du pusrutuliai, ne tik stuburiniuose gyvūnuose, bet taip pat protingumu pasižyminčiuose aštuonkojuose. Vienas pusrutulis tarsi atstovauja milijonus neuronų, kuriais esame įaugę į pasaulį, iš kurio ištraukiamas reikalingas atsakymas. Kitas pusrutulis tarsi atstovauja tūkstančių sąvokų kalbą, kuria atsiplėšus nuo pasaulio bandoma jį perprasti įvairiausiais klausimais. Šiose dviejų protų ir tarp jų esančios prarajos sąlygose iškyla trečiojo proto, sąmoningumo, galimybė.

Abstrakčiausioje matematikoje, kur iškyla pačioje matematikos kalboje slypinčių simetrijų apibūdinimas, būtent supersimetrijų klasifikavime.

Pasąmonės, sąmonės, savimonės šaknys metafizikoje, ištakos gamtos raidoje, apraiškos kultūros istorijoje, išraiška matematikoje.

Žmogaus vidiniai prieštaravimai leidžia įžvelgti ir išskirti jojo pasąmonę, sąmonę ir jas derinančią savimonę. Šį trijų protų išsiskyrimą galima paaiškinti metafiziškai, taip pat gamtos raidos dėsniais. Jisai vis naujai iškyla kultūros istorijoje ir yra išsakomas aukštąja matematika.

Metafiziškai aiškinant, sąmoningam žinojimui svarbu remtis žinojimu, taip pat pasikliauti nežinojimu. Taip priešingai žiūrint, savaime išryškėja skirtumas tarp atsakymus žinančius pasąmonės ir nieko nežinančios, tad klausimus klausiančios sąmonės. Jas sulygina tiriančioji savimonė, užtikrinanti jųjų sutarimą, atsakymų ir klausimų atitikimą. Savimonė taip pat dalykiškai sprendžia, kuriais atvejais vadovautis pasąmone, ir kuriais sąmone.

Gamtos raidoje organizmai skiria dalį išteklių modeliuoti pažįstamus reiškinius ir dalį išteklių modeliuoti nepažįstamus reiškinius. Tad galima suprasti kodėl smegenyse iškyla du pusrutuliai, ne tik stuburiniuose gyvūnuose, bet taip pat protingumu pasižyminčiuose aštuonkojuose. Šiose sąlygose iškyla sąmoningumo galimybė.

Kultūros istorijoje įvairiausiai aptariamas skirtumas ir dialogas tarp intuityvaus mąstymo ir racionalaus mąstymo, pradedant jin ir jang, ir nusitęsiant iki psichologų Kahneman ir Tversky sistemos 1 ir 2. Įvairūs mąstytojai pripažįsta trečiąjį mąstymą - išmintingąją savimonę - kuria žmogus valdo save: Platonas (epithumetikon, thumetikon, logistikon), Aristotelis (retorika, logika, dialektika), Konfucijus (pareiga ir gėda, įsakymai ir bausmės, dorybė ir deramumas), Xun Kuang (klajojantis, sutelktas, tuščias protas), šv.Paulius (kūniški, protiški, dvasiški žmonės), Spinoza (patirtys, protas, nuovoka), Montesquieu (teisiamoji, vykdomoji, leidžiamoji valdžia), Kantas (sprendimo galia, praktinis protas, grynasis protas), Peirce (vienumas, dvejumas, trejumas) ir taip toliau. Šiuos tris protus atitinkamai traukia grožis, gėris ir jų darnos ieškanti tiesa.

Abstrakčiojoje matematikoje, kur

Žmogaus vidiniai prieštaravimai leidžia įžvelgti ir išskirti jo pasąmonę, sąmonę ir jas derinančią savimonę. Šis trijų protų išsiskyrimas paaiškinamas metafiziškai, taip pat gamtos raidos dėsniais. Jisai vis naujai iškyla kultūros istorijoje ir yra išsakomas aukštąja matematika.

Pasąmonės, sąmonės, savimonės šaknys metafizikoje, ištakos gamtos raidoje, apraiškos kultūros istorijoje, išraiškos matematikoje.

Pasąmonės, sąmonės, savimonės šaknys metafizikoje, gamtos raidoje, kultūros istorijoje, matematikoje.

• Įvairiai iškyla:
  • Prisideda vienas, du, trys požiūriai.

• Pasąmone esame gamtos dalis, sąmone dalyvaujame kultūroje, tarp jų yra praraja.

• Žmoguje išskiriu atsakantį protą, klausiantį protą ir tiriantį protą.
• Šių trijų skirtingų protų tikslas yra pristatyti dvejopai, lygiaverčiai ką žinome ir ko nežinome, šiais dviem kampais užtikrintai išsakyti tą patį dalyką.
• Pasąmonė (atsakantis protas) žino, tačiau negali paaiškinti kaip. Sąmonė nežino, užtat klausia ir išsiaiškina kaip. Savimonė suderina klausimą ir atsakymą, taip pat sprendžia, kuriuo protu geriau vadovautis.

• sąmonė - nuovokumas
• savimonė - sąmoningumas

Pasąmonė, sąmonė, savimonė. Trijų protų apraiškos kultūros istorijoje.

Trys protai

Paraiškos apie tris protus

• Antropoceno iššūkiai kultūroje, menuose ir (geo)politikoje
• Human Condition in the Anthropocence Siūlyti iki rugsėjo 10 d.
• Applied Active Inference. Siūlyti rugsėjo mėnesį.