Active inference models do not contradict folk psychology

All right. Hello and welcome everyone. It's ActInfLab livestream number 46.0 and it's June 10th, 2022. Welcome to the ActInfLab everyone. We're a participatory online lab that is communicating, learning, and practicing applied active inference. You can find us at links here on the slide. This is a recorded and an archived livestream, so please provide us with feedback so we can improve our work. All backgrounds and perspectives are welcome and we'll be following video etiquette for livestreams. Head over to ActiveInference.org if you want to learn more about livestreams at the lab or other projects that are ongoing. All right. We are here in the first discussion, the .0 for background and context in stream number 46.0. We are learning and discussing the paper Active Inference Models Do Not Contradict Folk Psychology by Ryan Smith, Maxwell Ramstad, and Alex Kiefer. And the video, just like all the videos are, is an introduction and a contextualizer and an appetizer for some of these ideas. It's not a review or a final word. We're going to say hi and give introductions. Then we'll be covering the roadmap and abstract claims and aims. And then we'll head through some of the core sections of the paper and just get some of the key arguments down. And during the .1 and the .2 in the coming two weeks, we'll have open space for asking a lot of questions for those who want to participate live and ask questions as well. So on we go. We'll start just by introducing ourselves as much or as little as we'd like. And if we want to mentioning something that we're excited about in the paper, like what brought us to want to contribute to this .0 and all start. I'm Daniel. I'm a researcher in California, and I think the title says it all, though there's still more to add. And it speaks to many of the hottest and brightest debates in active inference, which is the rubber hitting the road with mind and brain and body and psychology and previous and different conceptions. I'll pass it to Dean. Thanks, Daniel. I'm Dean. I'm up here in Calgary. I think, well, a couple of things. First of all, one of the first active inference that I was on was a paper that Ryan had written. And so I was kind of impressed with that paper. And I knew that if I sort of invested some time in this one, there was stuff that I would become aware of previous. And the primary thing I came to was looking at active inference from the decisioning and the movement standpoint. Sort of seeing that looked at from a higher order and the lower order type of processings. And that when I, by the time I got into the paper and started looking at the mind to world and world to mind piece and, and, and seeing where the potential connectors were between sort of coming into it, not necessarily knowing that there would be different things of active inference. Much like I didn't realize there was an extended active inference until I read Axel Constance paper. That was kind of helpful. And I'll pass it to Jacob. Hi everyone. I'm Jacob. I'm a student from the Czech Republic. And I'm excited to reduce my uncertainty about the new kind of formulation that was, that was introduced in this paper, or at least it was the first time I came across it in the active inference literature. As you mentioned Dean about the different higher order and lower order descriptions and how they conceptually map to the different mathematical, mathematical formulation, and also to the psychological ontology and overall just discuss what that, what that means and what it might mean for other applications as well. And I'll pass on to Ryan. Ryan Smith. Yeah, thanks. So I'm Ryan Smith. So I'm a research associate professor at the Laureate Institute for Brain Research. You know, so I'm the first author of this, this paper. So, you know, obviously I was sufficiently excited about the ideas to write about it or sufficiently motivated at least to try to clarify some things that I am, you know, from my perspective are sort of…