Currently reading: Got there by learning about a guy named Karl J. Friston who is a bigshot in neuroscience and came up with “Free Energy Principle” (FEP) that from what I can see, basically ties in life being homeostatic (self regulating) and conjectures that all life continually is involved in active inference – that is, we’re inferring machines — and the key to the free energy – is taking advantage of this homeostatis life by minimizing external uncertainties by being educated basically about your environment, maximizing your affordances by minimizing wasted stretches of inference. That’s my 30 second take on it anyway. I might be wrong. These are written by other folks who take his FEP and use only a small portion of it — which I like, as I think his FEP is a BIT too grand at first impression — and like to see it used in a more modest fashion first. Plus this focuses on affordances which I see too little of and like learning more about.

Currently reading:
[read full article]

His free energy principle at first glance makes sense: Takes advantage of life as a homeostasis machine so if you stay balanced, not too many surprises with your expectations, you theoretically are getting all that thinking power for free. That’s my first impression. I think it’s fascinating. But… I think it’s incorrect. We’re not self-contained thermodynamic machines. But – I’ll see what he has to say about embodied cognition. That will get me a feel for his thinking processes better.

His free energy principle [read full article]


After denying it for a year or so, I adopted Danko Nikolic’s model, practoipoesis, in particular his anapoiesis processes, as the best model for intelligence as it can cover human, animal and AI, as well as crystallized intelligence in books and videos and such. Short version, which won’t do it justice: intelligence happens at different rates of speed. Adaptation speed. Evolution works at a very slow rate of speed, moment-to-moment decision-making happens at a very fast rate of speed. They’re all tied together and assist each other.

After denying it for [read full article]


YES! A big question I had and I think this answers it. In short: whether line drawing or color photograph, humans can figure out “what’s what” with equal ability. That, to me, is mind blowing. I look forward to reading this. _Simple line drawings suffice for functional MRI decoding of natural scene categories_ Despite the marked difference in scene statistics, we were able to decode scene category from fMRI data for line drawings just as well as from activity for color photographs, in primary visual cortex through PPA and RSC. Even more remarkably, in PPA and RSC, error patterns for decoding from line drawings were very similar to those from color photographs. These data suggest that, in these regions, the information used to distinguish scene category is similar for line drawings and photographs. To determine the relative contributions of local and global structure to the human ability

YES! A big question
[read full article]

Basically, “theory theory” means that to understand something you first have to an abstract it. An abstraction that is coherent can be considered a theory or theory-like. A drawing of a person can be considered “theory-like” as it is a simplification of a person and likely shows an internal representation of a person — a coherent abstraction. In short, humans are theory makers. Not just humans though as animals also use theory as does artificial intelligence.

Basically, “theory theory” means
[read full article]

Going TOO FAR down the food chain probably, Cyanobacteria vision. Do they see lines? Probably “too soon” in evolution but it’s good to figure out ranges. “Light-detecting molecules called photoreceptors respond to the focused image of the light source, and this provides the information needed to steer the cell towards the light. Although the details are different, and although a Synechocystis cell is in terms of volume about 500 billion times smaller than a human eyeball, vision in Synechocystis actually works by principles similar to vision in humans.”

Going TOO FAR down
[read full article]