Why do so many midwits on here deny the fundamental axiom of the Free Energy Principle?
>The Free Energy Principle (FEP) proposes that any system, including the brain, minimizes its "free energy" to survive and adapt. This principle suggests that systems constantly make predictions about their environment and minimize the difference between those predictions and sensory input, thus reducing uncertainty.

>>16697852 (OP)
Why would we take this principle on face value? It makes a lot of assumptions and is quite vague about what it means about "energy" and "free" and "system."

>principle = fundamental axion
mouthbreather thread

>deny the fundamental axiom of the free energy principle
>doesn't mention the axiom
Where is it, OP? What's the axiom? You do know what "axiom" means, yes?

>>16697852 (OP)

You seem to assume here that currently idle neurocircuit capacity would toggle into complex simulation mode while not press ganged into an imminent task ... with a well fed predator this might just apply. The ability for advanced planning on a guess sure is advantageous. At higher levels it would ofc require a narrative device integrating the actor into the stage so to speak. Hmm, evolutionarily sound thinking. :)

>>16697852 (OP)
>it somehow minimizes its energy all on its own for no reason
sure

>>16697852 (OP)
Asuka is for sex but Rei is for relationship

>>16699517
it has to or it wouldnt exist

free energy principle applies to any system for which one can conceivably construct a markov blanket

>>16697852 (OP)
well, sadly there is the fundamental axiom of OP is a nigger faggots, so we all know the worth of your fundamental axiom

There are no axioms in physics. You have made an observation and now you have to prove it stands in all cases and explain why so you must also show what it reduces to. It's complex enough that it definitely reduces to something.
If you want an actual big brain idea that explains many little quirks in the world: large scale structures have causative effect on lower scale structures. What does it mean? You know how some particles are really funky to normalize and their normalization ends up being a statistical miracle of everything lining up perfectly in an extremely unlikely way? It's not random, large scale dictates the behavior of low scale the as!e way low scale does to high scale. In a nutshell, emergent behavior works in both ways.
This isn't some schizo take, this is a growing sentiment among physicists.

>>16697852 (OP)
Use the Free Energy Principle to prove Asuka's better than Rei, then I'll believe FEP isn't just a cognitive trap

>>16697942
this doe

>>16697852 (OP)
Sounds like retarded schizobabble that no neuroscientist or biologist supports.

>>16697852 (OP)
because it's a theory. FEP is statistics.