Things & Beings
Animism and free energy
Category: Metaphysics, explained in simple terms
I still don’t understand Karl Friston’s “free energy principle”. It’s a supposedly “simple” idea that can be used to explain both the heat transfer of rocks and a mind navigating the world.1
I’m used to thinking of rocks and minds as two very different things. Minds want to do things, while rocks just chill along (or heat along). Free energy people sometimes talk about rocks wanting things. They might say “weird” things like: “Rocks want to be as hot as the things around them”.
Today I read a text by David Chapman2 that helped me get over some of the confusion.
In the text, David shares the idea that “thingyness” and “mindyness” are ways of understanding the world. Humans, being social animals, need to be able to understand what other people are up to. In order to make this easier, we have specialized ways of thinking about “mindy things”.
We can think of entities3 as “things”, or treat them as having “minds”. According to David’s post, “mind” vs “thing” is a matter of perspective and not an aspect of the entities themselves.
Sometimes, we think of non-living entities in “mindy” ways. The United States of America doesn’t have a brain, but we can still ask ourselves: “what does USA want?”.4
Given this context, talking about rocks wanting things makes total sense. By thinking of rocks as “mindy”, we might gain new insights into the nature of heat transfer.
What even is a “mind”?
Some people might protest at this point.5 If “mindyness” is a perspective, what does that tell us about their minds? Most people are pretty sure that they have minds: how else can they think?
The answer is a bit tricky:
You can be described as “thinking” when seen from a “mindy” perspective. Seen from another perspective, “your mind” is neurons firing in patterns.6 Complicated and intricate, but still “thingy”.
It’s generally useful to think of people in “mindy” terms, but that doesn’t mean that “mindyness” is an aspect of people themselves. It’s one interpretation out of many.
It’s easy to start thinking of “mindyness” as something that exists “out there” in reality. To say that some entities want things, while others just exist. I believe this is mistaken. We tend to treat some entities as mindy, but that doesn’t mean that they are mindy. We tend to treat some entities as thingy, but that doesn’t mean that they are thingy.
If we mistake our perspectives for reality, we lose out on much-needed flexibility. Sometimes it’s useful to think of things as “mindy”. Sometimes it’s useful to think of ourself/persons as “thingy”.
Treating things as mindy
You might find value in treating things as mindy. Many tribal spiritual practices are animistic, treating trees, rocks etc as “having souls”, or “being mindy”. I prefer having a generally modern worldview, but I wonder if I’m missing out. Given how common animism was in tribal societies, I wonder if there are some benefits to the view.7
Most modern people limit their “mindyness”-perspective for people and animals, treating most non-alive entities as “thingy”. Exceptions to this rule feel a bit random. Many people treat their plants as mindy. The same goes for their computers and cars.8 Groups of people are commonly treated as “mindy” as well, including corporations, nations and organizations in general.
What do the things we treat as mindy have in common? Do we change the way we relate to them by treating them as mindy? Could a more conscious choice of perspectives be useful?
I’m reminded of Internal Family Systems, a form of therapy where you treat inner conflict as a struggle between parts acting in “mindy” ways. Humans are usually very good at social reasoning; maybe we should try treating more things as “mindy”?
Are we thingy or mindy?
In most day-to-day situations, it's practical to think about ourselves and others as “mindy”. Most people tend to feel uneasy when thinking about themselves in “thingy” terms.9
“So you’re claiming I’m just a sequence of nerve signals that mechanically trigger each other?”
Some people avoid seeing themselves as things by thinking of minds and bodies as separate. They think of themselves as being minds that have bodies.10 In this way, they can preserve the idea that they are mindy, even though “their body” is mostly thingy.11 This whole chain of reasoning is based on the broken idea that we are minds, and therefore can't be things.
If we accept that thingyness and mindyness is a matter of perspective, the problem disappears. Instead, we can embrace our nature as “bodyminds”, bodies and minds in unity.12
Resolving some confusions
When we start thinking of thingyness and mindyness as different perspectives, we can accept that we are unified bodyminds. We can also start erasing the difference between things and persons, realizing that entities can be viewed as both.
This newfound realization allows us to resolve some confusions:
Some intellectually-oriented people don’t work out regularly. They neglect their body since they only care about their minds. When they start working out, they gain additional energy and clarity of mind. A functional body is a functional mind.
Some people are scared that AI will “wake up”, turning from a thing into a mind. Others say that AI will never go from thing to mind. Both of these perspectives are confused. Mindyness lies in the eye of the beholder.
I’ve set up an agreement with a company that will freeze my body after my brain activity stops, preserving the structure of my brain for a few hundred years. One day we might have the technology to restore me to good health. This is commonly known as cryonics. Some people are sceptical of this idea. They wonder if “I” will be there, when “my body” wakes up, even if the brain structure is the same as when I was alive. This doesn’t make sense, my body is my mind.
Some people prefer antidepressants over therapy because depression is about “chemical imbalances in their brains”. “Chemical imbalances” is a thingy perspective. A matching “mindy” perspective is that their depression is caused by depressive thought patterns. Maybe both are kind of true? Different ways to look at the same thing?
P.S: This post is based on the idea of ontological reductionism and ontological materialism. Some people disagree with this view. For a more complete argument, see book four of the sequences, here: https://www.readthesequences.com/Book-IV-Mere-Reality
P.P.S: Here’s some philosophical jargon if you want to dive deeper
Mindy entities are also known as “agents”, “things behaving teleologically”, or “subjects”. Thingy entities are also known as “non-agents” or “objects”.
Some related concepts:
Ontological Reductionism: The idea that everything is based on smaller, simpler things. Body → organs → cells → molecules → atoms → subatomic particles → quarks → ???. Not to be confused with methodological reductionism, where systems are interpreted based on the characteristics of their parts.
It’s not reasonable to reason about humans using the quark-lens, for instance.Mind projection fallacy: Mistaking perspectives for the thing perceived
Cartesian dualism: Believing that we are minds that have bodies
Ontological materialism: The idea that everything that exists is made out of matter (the mind = the body)
Panpsychism: The view that all entities, including inanimate objects and natural phenomena, possess some form of consciousness or mind.
Requiredism: The idea that our minds need to be deterministic (physical systems obeying laws of cause and effect), in order for us to have free will.
I’m sticking to my attempt to present ideas using simpler words. My first draft here was “unifying predictive processing and Thermodynamics”
An author I like. Practical approaches to philosophy. https://meaningness.com/about-my-sites#me
"entity” is a broad term that can refer to both “things” and “persons”. Language gets a bit tricky when you talk about thingyness vs mindyness.
People tend to over-mindify states. Check public choice theory for a different take.
Looking at you, Descartes
I believe this is true even for direct experience. Seeing a beautiful flower, feeling the warmth of the sun on your skin, kissing your lover. Neurons firing in patterns.
Explaining this in simple words bring on some uncertainty/aporia, though.
I don’t have this super thought out, but maybe there was some competitive advantage to animism that made it so very widespread. Worth exploring?
I wonder if treating computers as “mindy” is the source of computer-targeted aggression? Do people usually become angrier at malfunctioning objects if they are treating the objects in “mindy” ways?
Ever heard of objectification?
Also known as Cartesian dualism. Descartes is the same person who said “I think, therefore I am”.
Sometimes it’s almost like your belly has “a life on its own” though, amirite?
This is based on “Thou Art Physics”, from the sequences.