pith. sign in

arxiv: 2409.20318 · v3 · submitted 2024-09-30 · 🧬 q-bio.NC

A Rosetta Stone Hypothesis for Neurophenomenology: Mathematical Predictions from Predictive Processing

Lancelot Da Costa , Anil K. Seth , Karl Friston , Maxwell J. D. Ramstead , Lars Sandved-Smith This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 20:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.NC
keywords neurophenomenologypredictive processingbeliefsphenomenologyneural dynamicssubjective experiencetime perceptioncognitive effort
0
0 comments X

The pith

If phenomenology is a function of beliefs, then mathematical predictions follow for subjective similarity judgements, cognitive metabolic cost, subjective cognitive effort, and time perception.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a Rosetta Stone hypothesis in which beliefs serve as the central hub linking first-person phenomenology to third-person neural dynamics within predictive processing. It adopts a conditional strategy: starting from the assumption that experience depends on beliefs, it derives specific mathematical predictions about how people judge similarities between experiences, how cognitive effort and metabolic cost are felt, and how time is perceived. These predictions are meant to create a generative passage that connects the content of experience with measurable brain activity. A reader would care because the work offers concrete, testable ways to evaluate whether beliefs truly determine phenomenology. The connection from beliefs to behaviour is set aside as already established, while the link from beliefs to neural dynamics is reviewed to complete the bridge.

Core claim

The central claim is that if phenomenology is a function of beliefs, then predictions mathematically follow for subjective similarity judgements, cognitive metabolic cost, subjective cognitive effort, and time perception, completing a generative passage from beliefs to neural dynamics.

What carries the argument

Beliefs as the central hub that connects phenomenology, behaviour, and neural dynamics under predictive processing.

If this is right

  • Subjective similarity judgements between experiences are determined by the distances between the corresponding beliefs.
  • Cognitive metabolic cost is quantifiable from the magnitude or precision of belief updates.
  • Subjective cognitive effort corresponds to aspects of belief uncertainty or precision weighting.
  • Time perception varies with the rate or surprise associated with belief updating.
  • These relations complete the generative passage by linking beliefs to neural dynamics in predictive processing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the predictions are confirmed, belief-based models could be used to interpret first-person reports in neurophenomenological experiments.
  • The same conditional logic could be applied to derive predictions for other domains of experience such as emotion or selfhood.
  • Because the behaviour link is already documented, the hypothesis would allow full cycles from neural dynamics through beliefs to observable actions.
  • Clinical or pharmacological interventions that alter belief updating could serve as natural tests of the derived predictions.

Load-bearing premise

Phenomenology is a function of beliefs.

What would settle it

An experiment in which measured subjective similarity judgements fail to match the distances or relations predicted from differences in beliefs would indicate that the central assumption does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2409.20318 by Anil K. Seth, Karl Friston, Lancelot Da Costa, Lars Sandved-Smith, Maxwell J. D. Ramstead.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Markov blanket and Bayesian mechanics. This figure shows the separation between the dynamically evolving external s and internal µ states, whereby all interactions are mediated by the boundary or blanket states b. Left: We see the dynamics evolving over time in a causal network where external variables are in white, while variables that belong to the organism are in blue. Right: The Markov blanket is decom… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Phenomenology and dynamics on the space of beliefs. This figure showcases phenomenology as a belief about the causes of our sensory information, which may be within or external to the body. This belief is dynamically updated to approximate a posterior distribution (top left). Bottom: four subjective beliefs about one such causal variables s. Here, these are Gaussians. Their parameters (mean and standard de… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulated local field potentials. This figure shows simulated local field potentials under active inference. These are simulated from belief dynamics, i.e. the dynamically evolving content of experience, as an organism samples a sequence of stimuli. For more details on these simulated dynamics, please see [52, 82, 98] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Generative passages. This figures summarizes generative passages with Bayesian mechanics as the formal bridge between phenomenology and internal (e.g. neural) dynamics. Left: a subject’s phenomenology can be mathematically formalised as a belief (i.e. a probability distribution) encoded by its internal states. The subject produces first person descriptions of phenomenology that can then be used to infer it… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Consciousness science faces the challenge of bridging first-person experience with third-person empirical measurements. Neurophenomenology aims to build such `generative passages' connecting the content of experience with behavioural and neuroscientific data. However, the mathematical machinery for such bridges remains underdeveloped. Here we develop a Rosetta Stone hypothesis from predictive processing, where beliefs serve as a central hub connecting phenomenology, behaviour, and neural dynamics. This hinges on a central technical assumption that phenomenology is a function of beliefs. We pursue a conditional approach: if this assumption holds, then certain predictions mathematically follow. We derive predictions for subjective similarity judgements, cognitive metabolic cost, subjective cognitive effort, and time perception. We review the connection between beliefs and neural dynamics to complete the generative passage for neurophenomenology, omitting the connection between beliefs and behaviour as this is already well-documented elsewhere. Testing our predictions will inform the validity of the central assumption connecting beliefs and phenomenology, and advance the neurophenomenology research programme.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript advances a 'Rosetta Stone hypothesis' for neurophenomenology within predictive processing (PP). Beliefs are positioned as the central hub linking phenomenology, behaviour, and neural dynamics. The core technical move is the assumption that phenomenology is a function of beliefs; conditionally, if this holds, the authors claim to derive mathematical predictions for subjective similarity judgements, cognitive metabolic cost, subjective cognitive effort, and time perception. The connection from beliefs to neural dynamics is reviewed to complete one leg of the generative passage (the beliefs-behaviour leg is treated as already established).

Significance. If the central assumption can be independently motivated and the claimed derivations are made explicit and shown to follow without auxiliary stipulations, the work would supply a concrete, testable bridge between first-person reports and third-person PP quantities, directly advancing the neurophenomenology programme. The conditional framing itself is a methodological strength, as it converts the assumption into a set of falsifiable predictions rather than an untestable assertion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'certain predictions mathematically follow' from the assumption that phenomenology is a function of beliefs is load-bearing for the entire contribution, yet no explicit functional form f, mapping rule, or derivation steps are supplied; without these it is impossible to determine whether the listed predictions (similarity judgements, metabolic cost, effort, time perception) are entailed by the assumption alone or require additional PP-specific stipulations.
  2. [Introduction / main text (generative passage section)] The generative-passage claim requires all three legs (phenomenology-beliefs, beliefs-neural dynamics, beliefs-behaviour) to be addressed; while the beliefs-behaviour link is declared 'well-documented,' the manuscript must still demonstrate that the chosen PP equations for neural dynamics are compatible with the same belief representation used for the phenomenology predictions, otherwise the passage remains incomplete.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Notation for the belief-phenomenology mapping should be introduced with an explicit symbol (e.g., P = f(B)) at first use and carried consistently through the prediction derivations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive report, particularly for noting the methodological value of the conditional framing. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen the explicitness of the derivations and the coherence of the generative passage.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'certain predictions mathematically follow' from the assumption that phenomenology is a function of beliefs is load-bearing for the entire contribution, yet no explicit functional form f, mapping rule, or derivation steps are supplied; without these it is impossible to determine whether the listed predictions (similarity judgements, metabolic cost, effort, time perception) are entailed by the assumption alone or require additional PP-specific stipulations.

    Authors: We accept that the abstract does not itself contain the explicit functional mapping or step-by-step derivations. The main text does derive each prediction by combining the central assumption (phenomenology as a function of beliefs) with standard predictive-processing update rules and free-energy expressions; however, these steps are distributed across sections rather than presented under a single schematic. We will revise the abstract to state that the derivations appear in the body and will add a concise 'mapping table' in the introduction that lists, for each prediction, the belief variable, the phenomenological quantity, and the PP equation used. This will make transparent that no auxiliary stipulations beyond the framework's standard assumptions are required. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Introduction / main text (generative passage section)] The generative-passage claim requires all three legs (phenomenology-beliefs, beliefs-neural dynamics, beliefs-behaviour) to be addressed; while the beliefs-behaviour link is declared 'well-documented,' the manuscript must still demonstrate that the chosen PP equations for neural dynamics are compatible with the same belief representation used for the phenomenology predictions, otherwise the passage remains incomplete.

    Authors: We agree that explicit compatibility must be shown. The manuscript already employs the same posterior belief representation (distributions over hidden states and policies) for both the phenomenology predictions and the reviewed neural-dynamics equations. To make this compatibility unmistakable, we will insert a short subsection that (i) restates the belief variables used in the phenomenology derivations and (ii) shows that the neural-dynamics equations operate on identical variables, thereby closing the generative passage without additional representational assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; conditional hypothesis with testable predictions.

full rationale

The paper explicitly frames its core claim as conditional on the unproven assumption that 'phenomenology is a function of beliefs' and states that predictions 'mathematically follow' under that assumption to inform its validity. No derivation chain in the abstract or provided text reduces any listed prediction (similarity judgements, metabolic cost, effort, time perception) to the assumption by construction or via self-citation load-bearing. The connection to neural dynamics is reviewed separately to complete the passage, and behavior is omitted as already documented. This structure is self-contained as a hypothesis-generating exercise rather than a tautological derivation; the predictions serve as external tests rather than restatements of inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by the single domain assumption that phenomenology is a function of beliefs; no free parameters or invented entities are stated in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Phenomenology is a function of beliefs
    Explicitly identified in the abstract as the central technical assumption on which the Rosetta Stone hypothesis hinges.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5718 in / 1272 out tokens · 19888 ms · 2026-05-23T20:29:29.256998+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel echoes
    ?
    echoes

    ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

    We assume that the content of first-person experience can be formalised as (or related to) a belief (i.e. a probability distribution) … the information length … quantifies the computational cost of belief updating … correlation between the information length … and their energy expended … entropy production of neural population dynamics

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean J_uniquely_calibrated_via_higher_derivative echoes
    ?
    echoes

    ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

    the Fisher information metric … information length ℓ … d(q_μ, q_μ+dμ) … metabolic cost of phenomenology

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 108 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Maxwell J. D. Ramstead, Anil K. Seth, Casper Hesp, Lars Sandved-Smith, Jonas Mago, Michael Lifshitz, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Ryan Smith, Guillaume Dumas, Antoine Lutz, Karl Friston, and Axel Constant. From Generative Models to Generative Passages: A Computational Approach to (Neuro) Phenomenology. 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Deep compu- tational neurophenomenology: A methodological framework for investigating the how of experience, 2024

    Lars Sandved-Smith, Juan Diego Bogotá, Jakob Hohwy, Julian Kiverstein, and Antoine Lutz. Deep compu- tational neurophenomenology: A methodological framework for investigating the how of experience, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Lars Sandved-Smith, Casper Hesp, Jérémie Mattout, Karl Friston, Antoine Lutz, and Maxwell JD Ramstead. Towards a computational phenomenology of mental action: modelling meta-awareness and attentional control with deep parametric active inference.Neuroscience of consciousness, 2021(1):niab018, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Routledge, 2012

    Edmund Husserl and Dermot Moran.Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. Routledge, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Psychologism

    Martin Kusch. Psychologism. 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Routledge, 2013

    Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Donald Landes, Taylor Carman, and Claude Lefort.Phenomenology of perception. Routledge, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Zeta Books, 2021

    Philippe Setlakwe Blouin.La phénoménologie comme manière de vivre. Zeta Books, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy: Second book studies in the phenomenology of constitution, volume 3

    Edmund Husserl. Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy: Second book studies in the phenomenology of constitution, volume 3. Springer Science & Business Media, 1989

    work page 1989

  9. [9]

    Phenomenological psychology: Lectures, summer semester, 1925

    Edmund Husserl. Phenomenological psychology: Lectures, summer semester, 1925. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    work page 1925

  10. [10]

    Naturalizedphenomenology: Adesideratumoracategorymistake? Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 72:23–42, 2013

    DanZahavi. Naturalizedphenomenology: Adesideratumoracategorymistake? Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 72:23–42, 2013

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Prospects for a naturalized phenomenology

    Jeffrey Yoshimi. Prospects for a naturalized phenomenology. InPhilosophy of Mind and Phenomenology, pages 287–309. Routledge, 2015

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    Naturalizing what? varieties of naturalism and transcendental phenomenology

    Maxwell JD Ramstead. Naturalizing what? varieties of naturalism and transcendental phenomenology. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 14:929–971, 2015

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science

    Jean Petitot. Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science. Stanford University Press, 1999

    work page 1999

  14. [14]

    A Methodological Remedy for the Hard Problem

    Francisco J Varela. A Methodological Remedy for the Hard Problem. 3(4):330–49, 1996

    work page 1996

  15. [15]

    Francisco J. Varela. The Naturalization of Phenomenology as the Transcendence of Nature: Searching for Generative Mutual Constraints. 5:355–385, 1997

    work page 1997

  16. [16]

    Beyond the gap: An introduction to naturalizing phenomenology

    Jean-Michel Roy, Jean Petitot, Bernard Pachoud, and Francisco J Varela. Beyond the gap: An introduction to naturalizing phenomenology. InNaturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science, pages 1–83. Stanford University Press, 1999. 16

    work page 1999

  17. [17]

    The naturalization of phenomenology as the transcendence of nature: Searching for generative mutual constraints.Alter: Revue de phénoménologie, 5, 1997

    Francisco J Varela. The naturalization of phenomenology as the transcendence of nature: Searching for generative mutual constraints.Alter: Revue de phénoménologie, 5, 1997

    work page 1997

  18. [18]

    The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory?Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2):127–138, February 2010

    Karl Friston. The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory?Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2):127–138, February 2010

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Pavliotis, and Thomas Parr

    Karl Friston, Lancelot Da Costa, Noor Sajid, Conor Heins, Kai Ueltzhöffer, Grigorios A. Pavliotis, and Thomas Parr. The free energy principle made simpler but not too simple.Physics Reports, 1024:1–29, June 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    MaxwellJ.D.Ramstead, DaltonA.R.Sakthivadivel, ConorHeins, MagnusKoudahl, BerenMillidge, Lancelot Da Costa, Brennan Klein, and Karl J. Friston. On Bayesian Mechanics: A Physics of and by Beliefs, May 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Active inference on discrete state-spaces: A synthesis.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 99:102447, December 2020

    Lancelot Da Costa, Thomas Parr, Noor Sajid, Sebastijan Veselic, Victorita Neacsu, and Karl Friston. Active inference on discrete state-spaces: A synthesis.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 99:102447, December 2020

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Friston.Active Inference: The Free Energy Principle in Mind, Brain, and Behavior

    Thomas Parr, Giovanni Pezzulo, and Karl J. Friston.Active Inference: The Free Energy Principle in Mind, Brain, and Behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, March 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25. Curran Associates, Inc., 2012

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Schwartzman, and Anil K

    Keisuke Suzuki, Warrick Roseboom, David J. Schwartzman, and Anil K. Seth. A Deep-Dream Virtual Reality Platform for Studying Altered Perceptual Phenomenology.Scientific Reports, 7(1):15982, November 2017

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Seth, and David J

    Keisuke Suzuki, Anil K. Seth, and David J. Schwartzman. Modelling phenomenological differences in aeti- ologically distinct visual hallucinations using deep neural networks.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17, January 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D

    David M. Blei, Alp Kucukelbir, and Jon D. McAuliffe. Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticians. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(518):859–877, April 2017

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Christopher M. Bishop. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Information Science and Statistics. Springer, New York, 2006

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    A free energy principle for biological systems.Entropy, 14(11):2100–2121, 2012

    Karl Friston. A free energy principle for biological systems.Entropy, 14(11):2100–2121, 2012

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    Karl Friston, Lancelot Da Costa, Dalton A. R. Sakthivadivel, Conor Heins, Grigorios A. Pavliotis, Maxwell Ramstead, and Thomas Parr. Path integrals, particular kinds, and strange things.Physics of Life Reviews, August 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    A free energy principle for a particular physics

    Karl Friston. A free energy principle for a particular physics.arXiv:1906.10184 [q-bio], June 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1906

  31. [31]

    Pavliotis

    Lancelot Da Costa, Karl Friston, Conor Heins, and Grigorios A. Pavliotis. Bayesian mechanics for sta- tionary processes. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 477(2256):20210518, December 2021

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Active inference models do not contradict folk psy- chology

    Ryan Smith, Maxwell JD Ramstead, and Alex Kiefer. Active inference models do not contradict folk psy- chology. Synthese, 200(2):81, 2022

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    An approach to non-equilibrium statistical physics using variational bayesian inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11630, 2024

    Maxwell JD Ramstead, Dalton AR Sakthivadivel, and Karl J Friston. An approach to non-equilibrium statistical physics using variational bayesian inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11630, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Kullback and R

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler. On Information and Sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(1):79–86, March 1951

    work page 1951

  35. [35]

    The Self-Evidencing Brain.Noûs, 50(2):259–285, June 2016

    Jakob Hohwy. The Self-Evidencing Brain.Noûs, 50(2):259–285, June 2016

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Path integrals, particular kinds, and strange things

    Lancelot Da Costa and Lars Sandved-Smith. Towards a Bayesian mechanics of metacognitive particles: A commentary on “Path integrals, particular kinds, and strange things” by Friston, Da Costa, Sakthivadivel, Heins, Pavliotis, Ramstead, and Parr.Physics of Life Reviews, 48:11–13, March 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Metacognitive particles, mental action and the sense of agency, May 2024

    Lars Sandved-Smith and Lancelot Da Costa. Metacognitive particles, mental action and the sense of agency, May 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Anil K. Seth. Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(11):565–573, November 2013

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    Seth and Karl J

    Anil K. Seth and Karl J. Friston. Active interoceptive inference and the emotional brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 371(1708):20160007, November 2016

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    The Markov blankets of life: Autonomy, active inference and the free energy principle.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 15(138):20170792, January 2018

    Michael Kirchhoff, Thomas Parr, Ensor Palacios, Karl Friston, and Julian Kiverstein. The Markov blankets of life: Autonomy, active inference and the free energy principle.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 15(138):20170792, January 2018. 17

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    The inner screen model of consciousness: Applying the free energy principle directly to the study of conscious experience, April 2023

    Maxwell James Ramstead, Mahault Albarracin, Alex Kiefer, Brennan Klein, Chris Fields, Karl Friston, and Adam Safron. The inner screen model of consciousness: Applying the free energy principle directly to the study of conscious experience, April 2023

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Whyte, A.W

    Christopher J. Whyte, A.W. Corcoran, J. Robinson, R. Smith, K. J. Friston, and Jakob Hohwy. To see is to look: The minimal theory of consciousness implicit in active inference. Whyte, C., Corcoran. A.W., Robinson, J., Smith, R., Friston, K.J., Seth, A.K., and Hohwy, J. In prep

    work page

  43. [43]

    A beautiful loop: An active inference theory of consciousness, September 2024

    Ruben Eero Laukkonen and Shamil Chandaria. A beautiful loop: An active inference theory of consciousness, September 2024

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    A tutorial on the free-energy framework for modelling perception and learning.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 76:198–211, February 2017

    Rafal Bogacz. A tutorial on the free-energy framework for modelling perception and learning.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 76:198–211, February 2017

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Buckley, Chang Sub Kim, Simon McGregor, and Anil K

    Christopher L. Buckley, Chang Sub Kim, Simon McGregor, and Anil K. Seth. The free energy principle for action and perception: A mathematical review. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 81:55–79, December 2017

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    A Concise Mathematical Description of Active Inference in Discrete Time, June 2024

    Jesse van Oostrum, Carlotta Langer, and Nihat Ay. A Concise Mathematical Description of Active Inference in Discrete Time, June 2024

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Predictive processing as a systematic basis for identifying the neural correlates of consciousness

    Jakob Hohwy and Anil Seth. Predictive processing as a systematic basis for identifying the neural correlates of consciousness. Philosophy and the Mind Sciences, 1(II), December 2020

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    red" your

    Genji Kawakita, Ariel Mikhael Zeleznikow-Johnston, Ken Takeda, Naotsugu Tsuchiya, and Masafumi Oizumi. Is my "red" your "red"?: Unsupervised alignment of qualia structures via optimal transport. InICLR 2024 Workshop on Representational Alignment, March 2024

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    S. Amari. Information Geometry and Its Applications. Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    Information Geometry, volume 64 of Ergebnisse Der Mathematik Und Ihrer Grenzgebiete 34

    Nihat Ay, Jürgen Jost, Hông Vân Lê, and Lorenz Schwachhöfer. Information Geometry, volume 64 of Ergebnisse Der Mathematik Und Ihrer Grenzgebiete 34. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    Sueli I. R. Costa, Sandra A. Santos, and João E. Strapasson. Fisher information distance: A geometrical reading. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 197:59–69, December 2015

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    NeuralDynamicsunderActiveInference: Plausibility and Efficiency of Information Processing.Entropy, 23(4):454, April 2021

    LancelotDaCosta, ThomasParr, BiswaSengupta, andKarlFriston. NeuralDynamicsunderActiveInference: Plausibility and Efficiency of Information Processing.Entropy, 23(4):454, April 2021

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Methods of Information Geometry, volume 191 ofTranslations of Mathematical Monographs

    Shun-ichi Amari and Hiroshi Nagaoka. Methods of Information Geometry, volume 191 ofTranslations of Mathematical Monographs. American Mathematical Society, April 2007

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    The big idea: Do we all experience the world in the same way?The Guardian, October 2022

    Anil Seth. The big idea: Do we all experience the world in the same way?The Guardian, October 2022

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Adams, Klaas Enno Stephan, Harriet R

    Rick A. Adams, Klaas Enno Stephan, Harriet R. Brown, Christopher D. Frith, and Karl J. Friston. The Computational Anatomy of Psychosis.Frontiers in Psychiatry, 4, 2013

    work page 2013

  56. [56]

    Computational Psychiatry: Towards a mathe- matically informed understanding of mental illness.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, pages jnnp–2015–310737, July 2015

    Rick A Adams, Quentin J M Huys, and Jonathan P Roiser. Computational Psychiatry: Towards a mathe- matically informed understanding of mental illness.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, pages jnnp–2015–310737, July 2015

    work page 2015

  57. [57]

    Epping, Elizabeth L

    Gunnar P. Epping, Elizabeth L. Fisher, Ariel M. Zeleznikow-Johnston, Emmanuel M. Pothos, and Naotsugu Tsuchiya. A Quantum Geometric Framework for Modeling Color Similarity Judgments.Cognitive Science, 47(1):e13231, January 2023

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Jordan, and Grigorios A

    Alessandro Barp, Lancelot Da Costa, Guilherme França, Karl Friston, Mark Girolami, Michael I. Jordan, and Grigorios A. Pavliotis. Geometric Methods for Sampling, Optimisation, Inference and Adaptive Agents. In Geometry and Statistics, number 46 in Handbook of Statistics, pages 21–78. Academic Press, 2022

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    Features of similarity.Psychological Review, 84(4):327–352, 1977

    Amos Tversky. Features of similarity.Psychological Review, 84(4):327–352, 1977

    work page 1977

  60. [60]

    Pothos, Jerome R

    Emmanuel M. Pothos, Jerome R. Busemeyer, and Jennifer S. Trueblood. A quantum geometric model of similarity. Psychological Review, 120(3):679–696, July 2013

    work page 2013

  61. [61]

    Roger N. Shepard. Toward a Universal Law of Generalization for Psychological Science. Science, 237(4820):1317–1323, September 1987

    work page 1987

  62. [62]

    Attention, Uncertainty, and Free-Energy.Frontiers in Human Neuro- science, 4, December 2010

    Harriet Feldman and Karl Friston. Attention, Uncertainty, and Free-Energy.Frontiers in Human Neuro- science, 4, December 2010

    work page 2010

  63. [63]

    Lars Sandved-Smith, Casper Hesp, Jérémie Mattout, Karl Friston, Antoine Lutz, and Maxwell J D Ramstead. Towards a computational phenomenology of mental action: Modelling meta-awareness and attentional control with deep parametric active inference.Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2021(1):niab018, January 2021

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    Working memory, attention, and salience in active inference.Scientific Reports, 7(1):14678, December 2017

    Thomas Parr and Karl J Friston. Working memory, attention, and salience in active inference.Scientific Reports, 7(1):14678, December 2017

    work page 2017

  65. [65]

    Thomas Parr and Karl J. Friston. Uncertainty, epistemics and active inference.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 14(136), November 2017. 18

    work page 2017

  66. [66]

    Awareness as inference in a higher-order state space.Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2020(1):niz020, January 2020

    Stephen M Fleming. Awareness as inference in a higher-order state space.Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2020(1):niz020, January 2020

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    Geurts, James R

    Laura S. Geurts, James R. H. Cooke, Ruben S. van Bergen, and Janneke F. M. Jehee. Subjective confidence reflects representation of Bayesian probability in cortex.Nature Human Behaviour, 6(2):294–305, February 2022

    work page 2022

  68. [68]

    Landauer

    R. Landauer. Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process.IBM Journal of Research and Development, 5(3):183–191, July 1961

    work page 1961

  69. [69]

    Lynn, Eli J

    Christopher W. Lynn, Eli J. Cornblath, Lia Papadopoulos, Maxwell A. Bertolero, and Danielle S. Bas- sett. Broken detailed balance and entropy production in the human brain. arXiv:2005.02526 [cond-mat, physics:physics, q-bio], March 2021

    work page arXiv 2005

  70. [70]

    Adrian-Josue Guel-Cortez and Eun-Jin Kim. Relations between entropy rate, entropy production and in- formation geometry in linear stochastic systems.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2023(3):033204, March 2023

    work page 2023

  71. [71]

    An information-theoretic perspective on the costs of cognition

    Alexandre Zénon, Oleg Solopchuk, and Giovanni Pezzulo. An information-theoretic perspective on the costs of cognition. Neuropsychologia, 123:5–18, February 2019

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    Friston, and Giovanni Pezzulo

    Thomas Parr, Emma Holmes, Karl J. Friston, and Giovanni Pezzulo. Cognitive effort and active inference. Neuropsychologia, 184:108562, June 2023

    work page 2023

  73. [73]

    R. M. Church. Properties of the internal clock.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 423:566–582, 1984

    work page 1984

  74. [74]

    W. H. Meck. Neuropharmacology of timing and time perception.Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(3-4):227–242, June 1996

    work page 1996

  75. [75]

    Wencil, H

    Elaine B. Wencil, H. Branch Coslett, Geoffrey K. Aguirre, and Anjan Chatterjee. Carving the clock at its component joints: Neural bases for interval timing.Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(1):160–168, July 2010

    work page 2010

  76. [76]

    The inner experience of time.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1525):1955–1967, July 2009

    Marc Wittmann. The inner experience of time.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1525):1955–1967, July 2009

    work page 1955

  77. [77]

    Warrick Roseboom, Zafeirios Fountas, Kyriacos Nikiforou, David Bhowmik, Murray Shanahan, and Anil K. Seth. Activity in perceptual classification networks as a basis for human subjective time perception.Nature Communications, 10(1):267, January 2019

    work page 2019

  78. [78]

    Sherman, Zafeirios Fountas, Anil K

    Maxine T. Sherman, Zafeirios Fountas, Anil K. Seth, and Warrick Roseboom. Trial-by-trial predictions of subjective time from human brain activity.PLOS Computational Biology, 18(7):e1010223, July 2022

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    Seth, Murray Shanahan, and Warrick Roseboom

    Zafeirios Fountas, Anastasia Sylaidi, Kyriacos Nikiforou, Anil K. Seth, Murray Shanahan, and Warrick Roseboom. A Predictive Processing Model of Episodic Memory and Time Perception.Neural Computation, 34(7):1501–1544, June 2022

    work page 2022

  80. [80]

    Hierarchical Models in the Brain

    Karl Friston. Hierarchical Models in the Brain. PLoS Computational Biology, 4(11):e1000211, November 2008

    work page 2008

Showing first 80 references.