#karl friston

[cerebrodigital]

Durante la última década, Karl Friston ha dedicado gran parte de su tiempo y esfuerzo a desarrollar una idea que denomina el principio de la energía libre. Con esta idea, Friston cree haber identificado nada menos que el principio organizador de toda vida, y también de toda inteligencia.

Principio que también podría aplicarse a la Inteligencia Artificial.

Te contamos esta principio que podría hacer a la IA mucho más autónoma:

[philosophiesde]

Zoomposium with Professor Dr. Mark Solms: "Expedition to the sources of consciousness. The feelings as the embodiment of consciousness."

1. Information about the person and his scientific research work

This time we had the great honor and pleasure of talking to the very well-known South African neuroscientist and psychoanalyst Mark Solms, who has continued and successfully applied his own discipline, "neuropsychoanalysis" in the sense of Sigmund Freud, in another very exciting interview from our Zoomposium theme blog "Cognitive Neuroscience and Epistemology". He is "Head of the Department of Neuropsychology at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town and since 2005 Professor of Psychiatry at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, as well as editor and translator of Sigmund Freud's Complete Neuroscientific Works. Solms strives for a synthesis of neurology and psychoanalysis and was founding editor of the journal Neuro-Psychoanalysis, whose advisory board includes brain researchers such as Antonio Damasio and Wolf Singer." (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Solms)

2. Interview questions: "The sources of consciousness or why Freud's emotions are still important - with Prof. Mark Solms"

1. As editor and translator of Sigmund Freud's Complete Neuroscientific Works and founding editor of the international journal "Neuro-Psychoanalysis", you can be regarded as the initiator and co-founder of a new research direction of "neuropsychoanalysis".

Let us first talk briefly about psychoanalysis. Nowadays it is perhaps more in need of explanation than in earlier times, even if its founder Sigmund Freud is still good for a bestseller (think of "Der Trafikant" by Robert Seethaler).

Malicious tongues claim that psychoanalysis is irrefutable by design, because it explains criticism of it through repression, which in turn confirms it. Dietrich Schwanitz writes in his bestseller "Bildung. Everything you need to know", Dietrich Schwanitz even writes about psychoanalysis: "It even created the problems it sold itself as the solution to."

Where does psychoanalysis stand today and what benefits can we still derive from it? Another point of criticism of psychoanalysis is its alleged lack of empirical verifiability. Sigmund Freud himself had already described his vision in his book "Entwurf einer Psychologie" (1895/1950) that the findings of psychoanalysis should also be verifiable using the methods of the natural sciences. Do you believe that this goal has been achieved through the groundbreaking results of imaging techniques in cognitive neuroscience or are we still a long way from being able to trace the psyche (emotions and affects, memory, sleep and dreams, conflict and trauma, conscious and unconscious problem-solving processes) back to the physique (neuronal activities and processes)? In "neuropsychoanalysis", you now combine the methods of brain research with ideas from psychoanalysis.

How should we imagine this and what are your research goals? 2. in your book "The Hidden Spring - A Journey to the Source of Consciousness" (2022), you try to get back to the possible "sources of consciousness" in order to offer an alternative solution to the "hard problem of consciousness":

"The hard problem of consciousness is said to be the biggest unsolved puzzle of contemporary neuroscience, if not all science. The solution proposed in this book is a radical departure from conventional approaches. Since the cerebral cortex is the seat of intelligence, almost everybody thinks that it is also the seat of consciousness. I disagree; consciousness is far more primitive than that. It arises from a part of the brain that humans share with fishes. This is the `hidden spring' of the title. Consciousness should not be confused with intelligence. It is perfectly possible to feel pain without any reflection as to what the pain is about. Likewise, the urge to eat - a feeling of hunger - need not imply any intellectual comprehension of the exigencies of life. Consciousness in its elemental form, namely raw feeling, is a surprisingly simple function."

Does this mean that we have been looking in the "wrong places" because we have always equated consciousness with cognitive (human) intelligence and have only ever located it in the cortex?

On the other hand, there are philosophers who distinguish between consciousness (in the sense of inner experience) and intelligence. Peter Bieri, for example, writes: "There are countless feedback mechanisms in an organism [that lead to intelligent behavior - A. S.] without the slightest experience: why couldn't our entire self-model be present, but no experience?"

Is consciousness a pure luxury and basically superfluous for the progress of the world? (see "zombie problem")

Shouldn't we perhaps, as suggested in your book, pay more attention to feelings and affects or also to embodiment and embeddedness when explaining the phenomenon of consciousness in order to prevent this neurocentrism in the cerebral cortex?

Is it perhaps only our anthropocentric viewpoint that blocks our access to the problem, if we always start from our human consciousness and consciousness in general is perhaps a much "simpler function": "Consciousness in its elemental form, namely raw feeling, is a surprisingly simple function."?

Or does this point of view already make you a panpsychist? 3. But if this is the case and the naturalistic principles may also apply to consciousness, would it not also be theoretically possible to simulate a form of "artificial consciousness" ("AC/DC = artificial consciousness/digtital consciousness") on a machine that not only has a corresponding algorithm, but also sensorimotor inputs, backpropagation for its predictive coding/procsesing and affective feedback loops?

Based on Antonio Damasio's "Theory of Consciousness", could it perhaps be possible to develop a corresponding "construction manual for artificial consciousness" from the 3 stages for the development of consciousness: 1. "fundamental protoself", 2. "core consciousness" and 3. "extended consciousness", if the feelings and affects of unsupervised and reinforcement learning of machines are taken into account accordingly?

4. A paper "How and Why Consciousness Arises: Some Considerations from Physics and Physiology" (2018) emerged from your collaboration with Karl Friston, the renowned British neuroscientist at University College London, who works on mathematical models for imaging techniques in cognitive neuroscience and brain mapping.

In this and in another article "The Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Free Energy Principle" (2019), you try to make the concept of the "free energy principle" developed by Karl Friston fruitful for solving the "hard problem of consciousness".

Could you briefly explain the concept of the "free energy principle" and why you think it is a possible solution to the "hard problem"?

In your opinion, is it possible to derive a conclusive functionalism for the "free energy principle" or "predictive coding/processing" based on the concept of "extended homeostasis", which also explicitly includes feelings/effects?

If this functionalism were applicable, what does this mean for the possible technological possibilities of a "multiple realization" in the form of the above-mentioned "artificial consciousness" on machines?

You have also looked closely at the meaning of dreams. Do you think that a highly developed AI could dream? "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" as in the dystopian novel by US author Philip K. Dick from 1968. More at: https://philosophies.de/index.php/2024/05/12/sources-of-consciousness/ or: https://youtu.be/orOvCh7Fnn8

[mercurialbadger]

The tweetorial of a new Free Energy Principle paper "Natural language syntax complies with the free-energy principle" references Contrapoints.

[bsahely]

Distributed Science - The Scientific Process as Multi-Scale Active Inference

Reproduced from: OSF Preprints | Distributed Science – The Scientific Process as Multi-Scale Active Inference and Distributed-Science-The-Scientific-Process-as-Multi-Scale-Active-Inference.pdf (researchgate.net) Distributed Science The Scientific Process as Multi-Scale Active Inference Authors Francesco Balzan 1,2* (francesco.balzan3@unibo.it) John Campbell 3 Karl Friston 4,5 Maxwell J. D.…

[geoxx-carrboro]

Fracturism - Chapter 2 - The Self Is a Constructed Necessity - By Geox

Prelude · Meeting the Mirror That Speaks Back Stand, just for a moment, in front of the bathroom mirror at dawn. No coffee, no phone-light glow, no curated playlist to cue your mood—only the half-lit impression that wavers between sleep and daylight. Ask the face staring back: Who, exactly, woke up this morning? Neuroscientists will tell you that ninety-five percent of what you are about to do…

[n1k0laa5]

controlled hallucinations, cognitive dissonance, and the predictive machine you call a brain.

AKA another scientific deepdive for LOA and shifting with sources, metaphors, brain chemicals, existential spirals, a couple nervous breakdowns, and the part where you start to realize

oh.

oh wait.

i’m not crazy. this is just… biology??

hi. sit down.

we’re about to rip your current model of reality to absolute, beautiful, trembling shreds using computational neuroscience, trauma-informed cognition, and the barely-holding-it-together nervous system that’s been glitching behind your pretty little face since you were born.

bring your journal.

bring the page where you wrote “i live in my DR” fifty-seven times while sobbing.

bring your failed attempts. your 2am breakdowns. your overthinking spiral that sounds like “maybe i’m not meant to shift, maybe i’m broken.”

spoiler: you’re not broken. you’re just inside a meat machine trying to render god.

chapter one: predictive processing is hallucination management.

your brain does not see the world.

it doesn’t.

it hallucinates it.

i’m serious. the thing you think is “reality” is just a messy, best-guess composite made by a bunch of half-asleep neurons trying to keep you alive.

your brain takes stored expectations (priors) and spits out a hallucination of what it thinks is out there. THEN it checks the incoming sensory data. and if anything’s off? it tweaks the prediction.

slightly.

so when you look at a room, your brain isn’t “seeing” a chair.

it’s predicting chair. it fills in gaps. it renders light and color and form based on what it already expects.

now apply this to LOA.

when you say “i am already in my dream reality,”

but the environment screams “you’re still here loser,”

your predictive machine starts spiraling.

because there’s conflict.

and your brain does not like conflict.

it wants predictive harmony. so it will do one of two things:

throw out your affirmation as fake

or slowly start adjusting its priors to accommodate the new input.

and here’s where science gets sexy. (bad wording ik)

this whole system?

is called predictive coding.

Andy Clark, Karl Friston, Anil Seth. Look them up. Their work proves that perception itself is a hallucination stabilized by feedback.

In other words:

YOUR ENTIRE SENSE OF REALITY IS A PROGRAMMABLE ILLUSION.

so when you affirm, visualize, script, embody a new identity, you are not faking. you are introducing high-priority noise into the system to create cognitive entropy, which forces the brain to update its hallucination model. that update process is called:

✨ belief change ✨

and guess what?

it feels like absolute shit.

womp womp:(

chapter two: cognitive dissonance is how you rewire fate

imagine you’re holding two beliefs:

“i’m in my DR” and “i’m clearly not in my DR.”

that pressure in your chest? that weird nausea? the temptation to give up?

that’s dissonance.

coined by Leon Festinger in the 50s, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort caused by conflicting beliefs.

it’s not bad.

it’s literally the mechanism that forces the brain to change.

see, in his classic experiment, people were told to lie about a boring task.

those paid $1 felt worse than those paid $20.

why? because their lie had no justification. so their brain re-aligned their belief—

“maybe it was fun”—

to reduce the internal tension.

you are doing the same thing when you affirm things you “know” aren’t real.

you are creating belief-pressure.

and belief-pressure is fuel.

your resistance is not proof of failure.

it’s proof of friction.

and friction = movement.

so keep lying to your brain.

keep contradicting your senses.

that tension is what makes it work.

chapter three: your nervous system does not care about your manifestation

you are a god, yes.

but you are a god inside a body.

and that body?

is a neurobiological chaos vessel.

it’s constantly scanning for threat.

constantly tracking safety.

constantly interpreting the external world as dangerous or safe based on past trauma, stored somatic memories, hormonal surges, and ancestral programming.

so when you say, “i’m safe now, i’m rich now, i’m loved now,”

but your nervous system is in fight-or-flight because you’re actually dissociating in an abusive household?

your body does not believe you.

and that’s not your fault.

most people don’t understand this. they preach “circumstances don’t matter,”

and they’re right.

they don’t.

but your nervous system isn’t an idea machine. it’s a response machine.

and trauma wires it to expect more of the same.

so your job isn’t just to say different things.

it’s to feel different things.

to regulate. to co-regulate. to reprogram your sense of reality, not just your thoughts.

trauma doesn’t block you from shifting.

but it makes the hallway a little longer.

and you’re walking it anyway.

which makes you a fucking warrior.

chapter four: choosing a new reality is an override command

this is the part most people miss.

your brain updates models based on what it pays attention to.

salience maps. emotional tagging. frequency.

so when you decide—like, full-bodied, tantrum-screaming, foot-stomping “I REJECT THIS”—

you’re not just whining.

you’re issuing an override command.

because belief is a sensory input.

when you decide “this does not affect me,” your predictive model flags that data.

it says: “huh. that’s weird. we’re not reacting to this the way we used to. maybe this input isn’t high-priority anymore.”

and the model shifts.

bit by bit. glitch by glitch.

first it feels fake.

then it feels less fake.

then one day, your system auto-responds with “i live in my DR”

and your heart rate doesn’t spike.

because your body now believes it.

and the hallucination?

it shifts accordingly.

chapter five: yes, this is science. no, you’re not insane

you are not broken.

you are not too traumatized.

you are not failing just because you haven’t shifted yet.

you are literally reprogramming a quantum-level predictive organ that was trained on survival data from your childhood and society and media and fear and lack and doubt and now you’re saying “scrap it, i choose magic instead.”

do you understand how powerful that is?

you’re manifesting to change the architecture of how your brain understands existence.

this is hard.

but it’s happening.

the tears?

data.

the spirals?

data.

the journal entries you write in desperation?

data.

all of it is input. all of it is pressure.

and the system must respond.

so keep going.

walk through the hallucination like it’s fog.

choose. again. and again. and again.

until the model gives up

and you’re on the other side.

TLDR AND SUMMARY

your brain = a predictive hallucination machine

affirming “i’m in my dr” = you throwing a wrench in its system

dissonance = system glitch = GOOD

you feel weird? perfect. system’s updating.

you doubt? that’s tension. tension = CHANGE

body tired? yeah, bc you’re hacking biology

it’s not delusion, it’s neural reprogramming

you’re literally re-rendering your internal universe until reality snaps to match

affirm → feel → repeat → override

closing notes from an annoying nerd.

i know it’s hard.

i know you’re tired.

i know you feel like you’ve done everything.

but every day you get up and affirm something different,

you are re-scripting your hallucination from the inside.

and it’s working.

i swear to god (you!!!! hehe) it is.

you’re not delusional.

you’re not crazy.

you’re a sovereign neural pattern architect and your dream reality is not a maybe.

it’s an inevitability.

your system is shifting.

your hallucination is softening.

you’re almost home.

keep rewriting the code.

your predictive machine is listening.

[ericvanderburg]

Karl Friston's AI Law is Proven: FEP Explains How Neurons Learn

http://dlvr.it/SttvBK

[futuristicstarfishcollection]

Karl Friston has an answer to the second one

Here have my two favorite greentexts of all time

[msamba]

Scientists Discuss The Science of Perception & AI

Are we all living in a simulation inside our brains? Neil deGrasse Tyson and co-hosts Chuck Nice and Gary O’Reilly learn about the root of perception, if AI really is intelligent, and The Free Energy Principle with theoretical neuroscientist Karl Friston. Discover the Free Energy Principle as a framework for understanding how the brain self-organizes and minimizes uncertainty about the world.…

[buiducchinh]

Nguyên lý Năng lượng Tự do: Cánh cửa mở ra vũ trụ tri thức

Trong lịch sử khoa học, có những khoảnh khắc khi một ý tưởng xuất hiện, nó không chỉ thay đổi cách chúng ta nhìn nhận một lĩnh vực cụ thể, mà còn mở ra một cánh cửa hoàn toàn mới để hiểu về bản chất của thực tại. Nguyên lý Năng lượng Tự do (Free Energy Principle - FEP) là một trong những ý tưởng đột phá như vậy. Được đề xuất bởi nhà khoa học thần kinh Karl Friston, FEP không chỉ là một lý thuyết về cách não bộ hoạt động, mà còn là một khuôn khổ toán học mạnh mẽ có tiềm năng giải thích cách mọi hệ thống sống tương tác với môi trường xung quanh.

Tưởng tượng khi bạn bước vào một căn phòng tối. Trong giây phút đầu tiên, tâm trí bạn tràn ngập sự không chắc chắn. Bạn không biết chính xác vị trí của đồ vật, không gian rộng hay hẹp, có nguy hiểm tiềm ẩn nào không. Nhưng rồi, trong vài giây tiếp theo, bạn bắt đầu xây dựng một mô hình tinh thần về căn phòng. Bạn đưa tay ra trước, cảm nhận không gian, lắng nghe âm thanh, và dần dần, bức tranh về căn phòng trở nên rõ ràng hơn trong tâm trí. Đây chính là quá trình mà FEP mô tả: não bộ của bạn đang liên tục cập nhật mô hình nội tại của nó về thế giới, nhằm giảm thiểu sự khác biệt giữa những gì nó dự đoán và những gì nó thực sự cảm nhận.

Nguyên lý Năng lượng Tự do đề xuất rằng mọi hệ thống sống, từ các tế bào đơn giản nhất đến bộ não phức tạp của con người, đều hoạt động theo một nguyên tắc cơ bản: giảm thiểu sự khác biệt giữa mô hình nội tại của chúng về thế giới và thực tế khách quan. Trong ngôn ngữ toán học, điều này được biểu diễn như là việc giảm thiểu "năng lượng tự do" - một khái niệm liên quan đến mức độ bất ngờ hoặc không chắc chắn mà hệ thống trải qua.

Để hiểu sâu hơn về ý nghĩa của FEP, hãy xem xét quá trình tiến hóa của các sinh vật. Theo quan điểm truyền thống, chúng ta thường nghĩ về sự tiến hóa như một quá trình chọn lọc tự nhiên, trong đó các sinh vật thích nghi tốt nhất với môi trường sẽ sống sót. Nhưng FEP đề xuất một cách nhìn mới mẻ và sâu sắc hơn: có thể xem tiến hóa như một quá trình tối ưu hóa mô hình dự đoán. Những sinh vật có khả năng dự đoán chính xác nhất về môi trường của chúng - tức là những sinh vật giảm thiểu năng lượng tự do hiệu quả nhất - sẽ có lợi thế sinh tồn.

Ý tưởng này có những hàm ý sâu rộng không chỉ trong sinh học mà còn trong nhiều lĩnh vực khác. Trong tâm lý học, FEP cung cấp một khuôn khổ thống nhất để hiểu về nhận thức, học tập và hành vi. Nó gợi ý rằng não bộ của chúng ta không chỉ đơn thuần là một cỗ máy xử lý thông tin, mà là một cỗ máy dự đoán liên tục, luôn cố gắng dự đoán đầu vào cảm giác tiếp theo.

Trong lĩnh vực trí tuệ nhân tạo, FEP mở ra những hướng đi mới đầy hứa hẹn. Nếu chúng ta có thể xây dựng các hệ thống AI dựa trên nguyên tắc giảm thiểu năng lượng tự do, chúng ta có thể tạo ra những máy móc có khả năng học hỏi và thích nghi một cách tự nhiên và linh hoạt hơn, giống như các sinh vật sống.

Nhưng có lẽ, hàm ý sâu sắc nhất của FEP nằm ở lĩnh vực triết học và nhận thức luận. Nó đặt ra câu hỏi cơ bản về bản chất của thực tại và nhận thức. Nếu mọi sinh vật, bao gồm cả con người, đều đang liên tục cập nhật mô hình nội tại của mình về thế giới, thì "thực tại" mà chúng ta trải nghiệm có thực sự khách quan không? Hay đó chỉ là một mô hình tối ưu mà não bộ chúng ta đã xây dựng qua hàng triệu năm tiến hóa?

FEP cũng gợi mở những suy nghĩ mới về bản chất của ý thức. Nếu ý thức là sản phẩm của quá trình dự đoán và cập nhật mô hình liên tục này, thì liệu chúng ta có thể tạo ra ý thức nhân tạo bằng cách mô phỏng quá trình này? Và nếu vậy, đâu là ranh giới giữa ý thức và vô thức?

Hơn thế nữa, FEP còn đặt ra những câu hỏi sâu sắc về mối quan hệ giữa thông tin và vật chất. Nếu mọi hệ thống sống đều có thể được mô tả như những cỗ máy giảm thiểu năng lượng tự do, thì liệu chúng ta có thể xem sự sống như một dạng xử lý thông tin cơ bản? Điều này gợi ý một sự thống nhất sâu sắc giữa vật lý học, sinh học và khoa học thông tin.

Tuy nhiên, như mọi lý thuyết khoa học lớn, FEP cũng đối mặt với những thách thức và phê bình. Một số nhà khoa học cho rằng nó quá trừu tượng và khó kiểm chứng. Những người khác lại lo ngại rằng nó có thể dẫn đến một cái nhìn quá đơn giản hóa về sự phức tạp của các hệ thống sinh học. Những thách thức này không làm giảm giá trị của FEP, mà ngược lại, chúng thúc đẩy cộng đồng khoa học tiếp tục nghiên cứu, kiểm tra và mở rộng lý thuyết này.

Nguyên lý Năng lượng Tự do không chỉ là một lý thuyết khoa học; nó là một cánh cửa mở ra một cách hiểu mới về vũ trụ và vị trí của chúng ta trong đó. Nó gợi ý rằng từ các tế bào đơn giản nhất đến các xã hội phức tạp của con người, tất cả đều được thống nhất bởi một nguyên tắc cơ bản: sự tìm kiếm liên tục để hiểu và dự đoán thế giới xung quanh chúng ta. Trong bối cảnh này, mỗi suy nghĩ, mỗi hành động của chúng ta đều có thể được xem như một phần của quá trình vũ trụ tự khám phá và tự hiểu mình.

Khi tiếp tục khám phá và mở rộng hiểu biết về FEP, chúng ta có thể thấy mình đang đứng trước ngưỡng cửa của một cuộc cách mạng trong tư duy khoa học, một cuộc cách mạng có tiềm năng định hình lại cách chúng ta hiểu về sự sống, tâm trí và thực tại. Trong hành trình khám phá này, mỗi câu hỏi được trả lời sẽ mở ra hàng loạt câu hỏi mới, thúc đẩy chúng ta tiến xa hơn trong việc khám phá những bí ẩn sâu xa nhất của vũ trụ và chính bản thân chúng ta.

Nguyên lý Năng lượng Tự do không chỉ là một công cụ để hiểu về thế giới; nó còn là một tấm gương phản chiếu chính bản chất tò mò và khát khao hiểu biết của con người. Nó nhắc nhở chúng ta rằng, trong cốt lõi, chúng ta là những sinh vật luôn tìm kiếm ý nghĩa, luôn cố gắng hiểu và dự đoán thế giới xung quanh. Và có lẽ, chính trong quá trình tìm kiếm hiểu biết không ngừng này, chúng ta tìm thấy ý nghĩa sâu sắc nhất của sự tồn tại của mình.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

#luyenai #luyenaiprofounding

[averycanadianfilm]

The Minimal Phenomenal Experience Project:

Towards a minimal-model explanation for consciousness

The 2024 Computational Phenomenology of Pure Awareness Prize € 20.000

For the best contribution to computational phenomenology that substantially advances our understanding of the experience of pure awareness, either as a stand-alone phenomenon (e.g. during full-absorption episodes occurring during meditation practice or NREM sleep) or in combination with other forms of phenomenal content (e.g. during dual mindfulness practice or extended periods of non-dual awareness).

Jury: Shamil Chandaria, Karl Friston, Jakob Hohwy, Thomas Metzinger, Anil Seth, Heleen Slagter Deadline: September 30th, 2024 Submission to: mpe@uni-mainz.de

[acerboni]

Collective behavior from surprise minimization

See on Scoop.it - Bounded Rationality and Beyond

Conor Heins, Beren Millidge, Lancelot Da Costa,  Richard P. Mann,  Karl J. Friston, Iain D. Couzin

PNAS

We introduce a model of collective behavior, proposing that individual members within a group, such as a school of fish or a flock of birds, act to minimize surprise. This active inference approach naturally generates well-known collective phenomena such as cohesion and directed movement without explicit behavioral rules. Our model reveals intricate relationships between individual beliefs and group properties, demonstrating that beliefs about uncertainty can shape collective decision-making accuracy. As agents update their generative model in real time, groups become more sensitive to external perturbations and more robust in encoding information. Our work provides fresh insights into understanding collective dynamics and could inspire strategies in the study of animal behavior, swarm robotics, and distributed systems.

Read the full article at: www.pnas.org

[philosophiesde]

Zoomposium with Dr. Wanja Wiese: “The mathematization of consciousness or can mind be simulated?”

Information about the person

In another very exciting interview from our Zoomposium themed blog “Epistemology and Philosophy of Mind”, Axel and I talk this time with the still young German philosopher Wanja Wiese, who has already co-supervised some very interesting research projects and published numerous very readable publications, but more on that later.

He studied philosophy and mathematics at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, graduating with an M.A. in mathematics in 2012 and a PhD in 2015. From 2015 to 2021 he was a postdoc in the Theoretical Philosophy Group with Prof. Dr. Thomas Metzinger in the Philosophy Department of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. From 2018 to 2019, he had the opportunity to work as a visiting researcher at the Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London with Prof. Dr. Karl Friston, which also resulted in some important joint publications. Since 2021, he had taken up a lecturer and research position as a postdoc at the Ruhr University Bochum at the Institute of Philosophy II at the Chair of Philosophy of Mind. From 2023, he will be deputizing for the Chair of Theoretical Philosophy and Philosophy of the Social Sciences in the Faculty of Management, Economics and Society at Witten/Herdecke University.

I had been aware of Wanja Wiese for some time, as his name has often been mentioned in the context of the application of the philosophical concepts of “predictive coding/processing” and the “free energy principle” in connection with the elucidation of the constitution of consciousness. And it was precisely on this topic that I came across a very interesting video “Free Energy Principle, Consciousness, Illusionism, and Realism | Brains Roundtable discussion” of a discussion group together with Karl Friston, Mark Solms, Wanja Wiese, Krzysztof Dolega and Majid D. Beni on YouTube, in which the above-mentioned concepts were discussed. The subsequent discussion of Mr. Wiese's publications was also very promising and made for an interesting interview. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to briefly outline a few of his philosophical concepts.

More at: https://philosophies.de/index.php/2024/08/22/mathematisierung-des-bewusstseins/

or: https://youtu.be/G6_O-QvDvNk

[jcmarchi]

Stanhope raises £2.3m for AI that teaches machines to 'make human-like decisions' - AI News

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/stanhope-raises-2-3m-for-ai-that-teaches-machines-to-make-human-like-decisions-ai-news/

Stanhope raises £2.3m for AI that teaches machines to 'make human-like decisions' - AI News

.pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper display:none; img width:100%;

Stanhope AI – a company applying decades of neuroscience research to teach machines how to make human-like decisions in the real world – has raised £2.3m in seed funding led by the UCL Technology Fund.

Creator Fund also participated, along with, MMC Ventures, Moonfire Ventures and Rockmount Capital and leading angel investors. 

Stanhope AI was founded as a spinout from University College London, supported by UCL Business, by three of the most eminent names in neuroscience and AI research – CEO Professor Rosalyn Moran (former Deputy Director of King’s Institute for Artificial Intelligence), Director Karl Friston, Professor at the UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology and Technical Advisor Dr Biswa Sengupta (MD of AI and Cloud products at JP Morgan Chase). 

By using key neuroscience principles and applying them to AI and mathematics, Stanhope AI is at the forefront of the new generation of AI technology known as ‘agentic’ AI.  The team has built algorithms that, like the human brain, are always trying to guess what will happen next; learning from any discrepancies between predicted and actual events to continuously update their “internal models of the world.” Instead of training vast LLMs to make decisions based on seen data, Stanhope agentic AI’s models are in charge of their own learning. They autonomously decode their environments and rebuild and refine their “world models” using real-time data, continuously fed to them via onboard sensors.  

The rise of agentic AI

This approach, and Stanhope AI’s technology, are based on the neuroscience principle of Active Inference – the idea that our brains, in order to minimise free energy, are constantly making predictions about incoming sensory data around us. As this data changes, our brains adapt and update our predictions in response to rebuild and refine our world view. 

This is very different to the traditional machine learning methods used to train today’s AI systems such as LLMs. Today’s models can only operate within the realms of the training they are given, and can only make best-guess decisions based on the information they have. They can’t learn on the go. They require extreme amounts of processing power and energy to train and run, as well as vast amounts of seen data.  

By contrast, Stanhope AI’s Active Inference models are truly autonomous. They can constantly rebuild and refine their predictions. Uncertainty is minimised by default, which removes the risk of hallucinations about what the AI thinks is true, and this moves Stanhope’s unique models towards reasoning and human-like decision-making. What’s more, by drastically reducing the size and energy required to run the models and the machines, Stanhope AI’s models can operate on small devices such as drones and similar.  

“The most all-encompassing idea since natural selection”

Stanhope AI’s approach is possible because of its founding team’s extensive research into the neuroscience principles of Active Inference, as well as free energy. Director Indeed Professor Friston, a world-renowned neuroscientist at UCL whose work has been cited twice as many times as Albert Einstein, is the inventor of the Free Energy Theory Principle. 

Friston’s principle theory centres on how our brains minimise surprise and uncertainty. It explains that all living things are driven to minimise free energy, and thus the energy needed to predict and perceive the world. Such is its impact, the Free Energy Theory Principle has been described as the “most all-encompassing idea since the theory of natural selection.” Active Inference sits within this theory to explain the process our brains use in order to minimise this energy. This idea infuses Stanhope AI’s work, led by Professor Moran, a specialist in Active Inference and its application through AI; and Dr Biswa Sengupta, whose doctoral research was in dynamical systems, optimisation and energy efficiency from the University of Cambridge. 

Real-world application

In the immediate term, the technology is being tested with delivery drones and autonomous machines used by partners including Germany’s Federal Agency for Disruptive Innovation and the Royal Navy. In the long term, the technology holds huge promise in the realms of manufacturing, industrial robotics and embodied AI. The investment will be used to further the company’s development of its agentic AI models and the practical application of its research.  

Professor Rosalyn Moran, CEO and co-founder of Stanhope AI, said: “Our mission at Stanhope AI is to bridge the gap between neuroscience and artificial intelligence, creating a new generation of AI systems that can think, adapt, and decide like humans. We believe this technology will transform the capabilities of AI and robotics and make them more impactful in real-world scenarios. We trust the math and we’re delighted to have the backing of investors like UCL Technology Fund who deeply understand the science behind this technology and their support will be significant on our journey to revolutionise AI technology.”

David Grimm, partner UCL Technology Fund, said: “AI startups may be some of the hottest investments right now but few have the calibre and deep scientific and technical know-how as the Stanhope AI team. This is emblematic of their unique approach, combining neuroscience insights with advanced AI, which presents a groundbreaking opportunity to advance the field and address some of the most challenging problems in AI today. We can’t wait to see what this team achieves.” 

Marina Santilli, sasociate director UCL Business, added “The promise offered by Stanhope AI’s approach to Artificial Intelligence is hugely exciting, providing hope for powerful whilst energy-light models. UCLB is delighted to have been able to support the formation of a company built on the decades of fundamental research at UCL led by Professor Friston, developing the Free Energy Principle.” 

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

Tags: decision making, development, funding, llm

[robertfrancis4]

Schizophrenia and a “Schizophrenia All-Star” interview, on YouTube-

#schizophrenia and a “Schizophrenia All-Star” interview, on YouTube-

Attached below is todays video link to my “On Conquering Schizophrenia” YouTube channel. Today entails a “Schizophrenia All-Star” interview with Dr Karl Friston. Like all, todays video is ever brief and can be viewed amid an expert recognizance.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Clearly you and I are defining "mind" differently. I'm using definition provided by Karl Friston under the Free Energy Principle. It's not that a single cell makes a mind in its entirety; it's that a single cell can absolutely be part of a mind and also be the origin of a mind. You seem to be conflating "mind" with "brain", which is a pretty stale take on how humans work. We are a body-mind. You need to dig into the theory and philosophy behind embodied cognition.

Where did I say my godbrother wanted things? He couldn't want things, he never developed cognition sophisticated enough to want things outside of biological imperative. He was basically all reflex no rationality, but I adored him. What I described was his reflexive reaction to a pleasurable sensation. He could never "want" to swing.

The capacity for consciousness is an intrinsic property governed by essential kind, while the capability of consciousness is an extrinsic feature contingent upon temporality. No human organism just-so-happens to have the capacity for consciousness; it's a defining feature of the kind of being we are in our prime.

Now, whether that capacity is expressed latently or manifest as a capability depends upon whether or not the human in question just-so-happens in that particular static moment to be in a state in which consciousness is developmentally appropriate. We shouldn't punish some humans just because they aren't lucky enough to have been conceived earlier; it just as easily could have been us in their position.

Woah-hoa-hoa, I am NOT arguing from potentiality; you have completely misinterpreted Artukovic's argument. She argues that all living human organisms are in an active and inherent relation. You are stuck in the paradigm of thinking of a fetus in stasis, but she is arguing that a fetus is actually and presently in a dynamic process in current reality. This is not mere potential for a valuable property, this is a real relation to the property. You need to reread Hegel.

If the body of the fetus does not experience the dismemberment, then what is being dismembered in an abortion?

Haven't posted one of these in a while