سؤال جيد. وأنا مهتم بمتابعة الإجابة عنه، ومن خلاله أثرت الفضول العلمي لديّ، سأسعى للبحث فيه، وسأتابع إجابات السادة الباحثين عنه... شكرا جزيلا.

Good question. I am really interested to follow the other researchers' answers, since this question made me curious about it even more. Thank you.

سؤال جيد. وأنا مهتم بمتابعة الإجابة عنه، ومن خلاله أثرت الفضول العلمي لديّ، سأسعى للبحث فيه، وسأتابع إجابات السادة الباحثين عنه... شكرا جزيلا.

Good question. I am really interested to follow the other researchers' answers, since this question made me curious about it even more. Thank you.

I completely agree with Mohammed Saleh Alajmi

Daniel Ari Friedman hello,

After glancing at your list (appears thorough) would you agree with Friston’s position that if we enter the “self-evident” space, then the terms (and importantly the meaning with each term) populating the space, are dynamic (will change depending on the degree of external variability that the internal state must bookend)?

I believe this is the case. So you never have a “complete” list. What you have is a forming or emergent set that is scale bound. If your goal is to build an ontology of completeness, should it be an “existential” result, or, are you looking at taking complete advantage of modalities (plural) that active “ranging” as maintaining, affords? Both?

Just some openers to see how far you want to pry this idea apart (I appreciate the “name it to tame it” requirement, but would hate to see the construction effort obliterate the power of a deconstructive blanket).

much thanks,

Hello Dean Tickles thank you for the response.

1st paragraph -- Friston's perception of FEP & Active Inference is laid out somewhat here: https://www.aliusresearch.org/bulletin02-fristoninterview.html . I agree with you that terms are dynamic, and must be contextualized / co-created in a participatory fashion

2nd paragraph -- Agreed there is no "complete" list of terms (for Active Inference, or anything). We're thinking about this terms list as a non-equilibrium steady state, or a stable version from a product design perspective. We'll develop this terms list into broader dynamic ontologies, data schema, and formal logics. For now, we're looking to just get all the feedback and participation we can get.

3rd paragraph -- interesting questions! The kinds of stuff we've been discussing weekly in our Active Inference Livestreams (schedule and past streams: rb.gy/kvnpyc ), and in our open-science Lab too: https://www.activeinference.org/ ). We're interested in taking it as far as the community wants to go.

You and anyone would be welcome to participate in Active Inference Lab! Let us know here if you have any questions. Thanks.

Daniel Ari Friedman

Thank you for the references. I will have a closer look this W/E. I caught the first few minutes of the Nov. 24 Active Inference Stream. Not sure how it turns out yet (total contributions to the dialogue, who has stuck around for multiple sessions) but am always curious.

In the meantime, I’ve found Friston’s work to be very useful in gapping back & forth from inference modelling. Thus, “plan following” inverts (not reverse engineered) Möbius-style to “the plan folds out of the propositional.” Propositional “stickiness” then becomes the attractor state (i.e. Free energy usage as prediction error reduction medium, places collection function ahead of connection function. Metaphorically speaking, functioning not so much as sequence follower (using a zipper, or the matching of Velcro strips) as a determination function through space/time. What if I have a zipper fly, and a Velcro pocket flap and laces around the cuffs? Is that a predictable feature set/collection because _____? Honouring the “______” is the key. C.S. Peirce’s work a century ago foretold Friston’s more recent work on the power of the “______”et )

This is less conventional inquiry and more “conceptability” which is a term I’ve coined for de/reconstructive (Markov _____et) geometry (trying here to avoid the “too technical” scaring off of those who would benefit most...jury still out on whether that is the case).

If we are hard wired to be “less wrong” (I’m confident that is the case) I then see moving from that generalization: Fuzzy to edgy, edgy back to more fuzzy idea forming - to the particulars materializing for/of each scaled circumstance, as the secret sauce here. This is the whole Pi distributing through zeros. Turning all of this into practical (pragmatic) doings across non-continuous, only proximal boundaries/fields, is the breakthrough (step-function) moment.

Again, thank you for the invitations and I will do some searching as per your portals pass.