A tale of two densities: Active inference is enactive inference

The aim of this paper is to clarify how best to interpret some of the central constructs that underwrite the free-energy principle (FEP) – and its corollary, active inference – in theoretical neuroscience and biology: namely, the role that generative models and variational densities play in this theory. We argue that these constructs have been systematically misrepresented in the literature; because of the conflation between the FEP and active inference, on the one hand, and distinct (albeit closely related) Bayesian formulations, centred on the brain – variously known as predictive processing, predictive coding, or the prediction error minimisation framework. More specifically, we examine two contrasting interpretations of these models: a structural representationalist interpretation and an enactive interpretation. We argue that the structural representationalist interpretation of generative and recognition models does not do justice to the role that these constructs play in active inference under the FEP. We propose an enactive interpretation of active inference – what might be called enactive inference. In active inference under the FEP, the generative and recognition models are best cast as realising inference and control – the self-organising, belief-guided selection of action policies – and do not have the properties ascribed by structural representationalists

Regimes of Expectations: An Active Inference Model of Social Conformity and Human Decision Making

How do humans come to acquire shared expectations about how they ought to behave in distinct normalized social settings? This paper offers a normative framework to answer this question. We introduce the computational construct of ‘deontic value’ – based on active inference and Markov decision processes – to formalize conceptions of social conformity and human decision-making. Deontic value is an attribute of choices, behaviors, or action sequences that inherit directly from deontic cues in our econiche (e.g., red traffic lights); namely, cues that denote an obligatory social rule. Crucially, the prosocial aspect of deontic value rests upon a particular form of circular causality: deontic cues exist in the environment in virtue of the environment being modified by repeated actions, while action itself is contingent upon the deontic value of environmental cues. We argue that this construction of deontic cues enables the epistemic (i.e., information-seeking) and pragmatic (i.e., goal- seeking) values of any behavior to be ‘cached’ or ‘outsourced’ to the environment, where the environment effectively ‘learns’ about the behavior of its denizens. We describe the process whereby this particular aspect of value enables learning of habitual behavior over neurodevelopmental and transgenerational timescales

Multiscale Integration: Beyond Internalism and Externalism

We present a multiscale integrationist interpretation on the boundaries of cognitive systems, using the Markov blanket formalism of the variational free energy principle (FEP). This interpretation is intended as a corrective for the philosophical debate over internalist and externalist interpretations of cognitive boundaries; we stake out a compromise position. We first survey key principles of new radical (extended, enactive, embodied) views of cognition. We then describe an internalist interpretation premised on the Markov blanket formalism. Having reviewed these accounts, we develop our positive multiscale account. We argue that the statistical seclusion of internal from external states of the system – entailed by the existence of a Markov boundary – can coexist happily with the multiscale integration of the system through its dynamics. Our approach does not privilege any given boundary (whether it be that of the brain, body, or world), nor does it argue that all boundaries are equally prescient. We argue that the relevant boundaries of cognition depend on the level being characterised and the explanatory interests that guide investigation. We approach the issue of how and where to draw the boundaries of cognitive systems through a multiscale ontology of cognitive systems, which offers a multidisciplinary research heuristic for cognitive science

Embodied Skillful Performance: Where the Action Is

When someone masters a skill, their performance looks to us like second nature: it looks as if their actions are performed smoothly without explicit, knowledge-driven, online monitoring of their performance. Contemporary computational models in motor control theory, however, are instructionist. That is, they cast skilful performance as a knowledge-driven process, one that is driven by explicit motor representations of the action to be performed skillfully, which harness instructions for performance. Optimal control theory, a popular representative of such approaches, casts skillful performance as the execution of motor commands, the deliverances of a motor control system implemented by separable forward and inverse models that work in tandem with a state estimator to control the motor plant. These models rest on the principle that motor control is realized by the concerted action of separate modular subsystems, which transform an explicit motor representation into a sequence of physical movements. This paper aims to show the limitations of such instructionist approaches to skillful performance. Specifically, we address whether the assumption of modular knowledge-driven motor control in optimal control theory (based on motor commands computed by separable state estimators, forward models, and inverse models) is warranted. The first section of this paper examines the instructionist assumption, according to which skillful performance consists in the execution of instructions invested in motor representations. The second and third sections characterize the implementation of motor representations as motor commands, with a special focus on formulations from optimal control theory. The final sections of this paper examine predictive coding and active inference – behavioral modeling frameworks that descend, but are distinct, from optimal control theory – and argue that the instructionist assumption is ill-motivated in light of new developments in motor control theory, which cast motor control and motor planning as a form of (active) inference

Embodied Skillful Performance: Where the Action Is

When someone masters a skill, their performance looks to us like second nature: it looks as if their actions are performed smoothly without explicit, knowledge-driven, online monitoring of their performance. Contemporary computational models in motor control theory, however, are instructionist. That is, they cast skilful performance as a knowledge-driven process, one that is driven by explicit motor representations of the action to be performed skillfully, which harness instructions for performance. Optimal control theory, a popular representative of such approaches, casts skillful performance as the execution of motor commands, the deliverances of a motor control system implemented by separable forward and inverse models that work in tandem with a state estimator to control the motor plant. These models rest on the principle that motor control is realized by the concerted action of separate modular subsystems, which transform an explicit motor representation into a sequence of physical movements. This paper aims to show the limitations of such instructionist approaches to skillful performance. Specifically, we address whether the assumption of modular knowledge-driven motor control in optimal control theory (based on motor commands computed by separable state estimators, forward models, and inverse models) is warranted. The first section of this paper examines the instructionist assumption, according to which skillful performance consists in the execution of instructions invested in motor representations. The second and third sections characterize the implementation of motor representations as motor commands, with a special focus on formulations from optimal control theory. The final sections of this paper examine predictive coding and active inference – behavioral modeling frameworks that descend, but are distinct, from optimal control theory – and argue that the instructionist assumption is ill-motivated in light of new developments in motor control theory, which cast motor control and motor planning as a form of (active) inference

Mapping Husserlian phenomenology onto active inference

Phenomenology is the rigorous descriptive study of conscious experience. Recent attempts to formalize Husserlian phenomenology provide us with a mathematical model of perception as a function of prior knowledge and expectation. In this paper, we re-examine elements of Husserlian phenomenology through the lens of active inference. In doing so, we aim to advance the project of computational phenomenology, as recently outlined by proponents of active inference. We propose that key aspects of Husserl's descriptions of consciousness can be mapped onto aspects of the generative models associated with the active inference approach. We first briefly review active inference. We then discuss Husserl's phenomenology, with a focus on time consciousness. Finally, we present our mapping from Husserlian phenomenology to active inference.Comment: 10 page

Embodied Skillful Performance: Where the Action Is

When someone masters a skill, their performance looks to us like second nature: it looks as if their actions are performed smoothly without explicit, knowledge-driven, online monitoring of their performance. Contemporary computational models in motor control theory, however, are instructionist. That is, they cast skilful performance as a knowledge-driven process, one that is driven by explicit motor representations of the action to be performed skillfully, which harness instructions for performance. Optimal control theory, a popular representative of such approaches, casts skillful performance as the execution of motor commands, the deliverances of a motor control system implemented by separable forward and inverse models that work in tandem with a state estimator to control the motor plant. These models rest on the principle that motor control is realized by the concerted action of separate modular subsystems, which transform an explicit motor representation into a sequence of physical movements. This paper aims to show the limitations of such instructionist approaches to skillful performance. Specifically, we address whether the assumption of modular knowledge-driven motor control in optimal control theory (based on motor commands computed by separable state estimators, forward models, and inverse models) is warranted. The first section of this paper examines the instructionist assumption, according to which skillful performance consists in the execution of instructions invested in motor representations. The second and third sections characterize the implementation of motor representations as motor commands, with a special focus on formulations from optimal control theory. The final sections of this paper examine predictive coding and active inference – behavioral modeling frameworks that descend, but are distinct, from optimal control theory – and argue that the instructionist assumption is ill-motivated in light of new developments in motor control theory, which cast motor control and motor planning as a form of (active) inference

A tale of two densities: Active inference is enactive inference

The aim of this paper is to clarify how best to interpret some of the central constructs that underwrite the free-energy principle (FEP) – and its corollary, active inference – in theoretical neuroscience and biology: namely, the role that generative models and variational densities play in this theory. We argue that these constructs have been systematically misrepresented in the literature; because of the conflation between the FEP and active inference, on the one hand, and distinct (albeit closely related) Bayesian formulations, centred on the brain – variously known as predictive processing, predictive coding, or the prediction error minimisation framework. More specifically, we examine two contrasting interpretations of these models: a structural representationalist interpretation and an enactive interpretation. We argue that the structural representationalist interpretation of generative and recognition models does not do justice to the role that these constructs play in active inference under the FEP. We propose an enactive interpretation of active inference – what might be called enactive inference. In active inference under the FEP, the generative and recognition models are best cast as realising inference and control – the self-organising, belief-guided selection of action policies – and do not have the properties ascribed by structural representationalists