Ian Robertson, Julian Kiverstein, and Michael Kirchhoff discuss the literalist fallacy and realism about the free energy principle. They explore the ongoing debate on whether FEP models accurately represent phenomena or are just heuristic tools. The misconceptions surrounding organisms strictly adhering to FEP models and the role of realism and abstraction in scientific modeling are also examined.
The Free Energy Principle (FEP) is a mathematical framework used to explain cognitive activity in biological organisms.
There is a debate within the FEP community between scientific realists and instrumentalists about the accuracy of FEP models in describing target phenomena.
Deep dives
The Ambitious Scope of the Free Energy Principle (FEP)
The FEP is a theoretical framework initially proposed to provide a unified theory of brain function and has since been applied to explain self-organization in all biological organisms. Despite claims of preposterousness, FEP researchers aim to explain cognitive activity with a simple mathematical principle.
The Literalist Fallacy and Realism about FEP Models
Within the FEP community, there is a debate between scientific realists and instrumentalists concerning how the mathematical models of FEP describe their target phenomena. Some instrumentalists view FEP models as heuristic tools for prediction, while realists argue that many FEP models accurately describe the phenomena they model. The literalist fallacy stems from an overly literal understanding of scientific realism and fails to account for the abstraction and idealization inherent in modeling.