Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:26:24.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A continuity of Markov blanket interpretations under the free-energy principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2022

Anil Seth Open the ORCID record for Anil Seth [Opens in a new window] ,
Tomasz Korbak  and
Alexander Tschantz
Anil Seth
Affiliation:
Department of Informatics, School of Engineering and Informatics, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ, UK [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Tomasz Korbak
Affiliation:
Department of Informatics, School of Engineering and Informatics, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ, UK [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Alexander Tschantz
Affiliation:
Department of Informatics, School of Engineering and Informatics, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ, UK [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bruineberg and colleagues helpfully distinguish between instrumental and ontological interpretations of Markov blankets, exposing the dangers of using the former to make claims about the latter. However, proposing a sharp distinction neglects the value of recognising a continuum spanning from instrumental to ontological. This value extends to the related distinction between “being” and “having” a model.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e208
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguilera, M., Millidge, B., Tschantz, A., Buckley, C. L. (2022). How particular is the physics of the free energy principle? Physics of Life Reviews, 40, 24–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biehl, M., Pollock, F. A., & Kanai, R. (2021) A technical critique of some parts of the free energy principle. Entropy (Basel), 23(3), 293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chemero, A. (2000). Anti-representationalism and the dynamical stance. Philosophy of Science, 67(4). https://doi.org/10.1086/392858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998) The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 10–23.10.1093/analys/58.1.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conant, R, & Ashby, W. R. (1970) Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system. International Journal of Systems Science, 1(2), 89–97.10.1080/00207727008920220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. J. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirchhoff, M., Parr, T., Palacios, E., Friston, K. J., & Kiverstein, J. (2018). The Markov blankets of life: Autonomy, active inference and the free energy principle. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 15(138). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0792CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirchhoff, M. D., & Kiverstein, J. (2021). How to determine the boundaries of the mind: A Markov blanket proposal. Synthese, 198, 4791–4810.10.1007/s11229-019-02370-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mach, E. (2012). Die mechanik in ihrer entwicklung. In Ernst Mach studienausgabe. Xenomoi.Google Scholar
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 42. D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seth, A. K., & Tsakiris, M. (2018). Being a beast machine: The somatic basis of selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22(11), 969–981.10.1016/j.tics.2018.08.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sigmund, K. (2017). Exact thinking in demented times. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Van Gelder, T. (1995) What might cognition be if not computation? Journal of Philosophy, 92(7), 345–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar