[1]
Allostasis: the process of achieving homeostasis.
[2]
There is an interesting analogy here to the overlooked “perceptual control theory” of William T. Powers, which says that living things control their perceived environment by means of their behavior, so that perceptual variables are the targets of control (1973).
[3]
An important application of this idea is to the Bayesian brain itself as a scientific hypothesis. A concern about the Bayesian brain hypothesis is that it can be insulated from falsification by postulating convenient (typically unobservable) priors, much like adaptationist explanations in evolutionary biology can be critiqued as “just so” stories. The key question, not answered here, is whether neural mechanisms implement (approximations to) Bayesian inference, or whether Bayesian concepts merely provide a useful interpretative framework. In the former case one would require the Bayesian brain hypothesis to be progressive not degenerate.
[4]
The continually increasing pressure to justify research in terms of “impact” – especially when seeking funding – highlights one way in which an emphasis on control (rather than discovery) is realized in scientific practice.
[5]
See also my response (Seth 2015b) to commentaries on (Seth 2014), which focuses on this issue.
[6]
Phenomenal unreality on this story corresponds to a loss of “transparency” as described by (Metzinger 2003). For Metzinger, transparency is lost – and phenomenal unrealness results – when the “construction process” underlying perception becomes available for attentional processing. This maps neatly on a failure to inferentially unmix world-related from perceiver-related hidden causes – see Seth (2015b) for more on this.
[7]
Wiese, when discussing König’s FeelSpace project (Kaspar 2014), interprets PPSMC as saying that increased practice with the FeelSpace compass belt – and hence increased counterfactual richness– would lead to “increased perceptual presence (for the belt, or the vibrations, or the hip/waist, etc.)” (Wiese this collection, p. 17). I see things differently. The counterfactual predictions, while mediated by the belt, relate to hidden causes in the world (e.g., magnetic north). In fact, PPSMC says that FeelSpace practice would lead to hierarchically deep and counterfactually rich models of how “magnetic north” impacts on belt vibrations and the like, leading to increased world-revealing presence for these worldly causes but diminished perceptual presence of the tactile stimulation itself. Still, the FeelSpace project certainly provides a fertile empirical testbed for the ideas raised here.