Cited by 50Embodied and Extended CognitionPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFree Will and Agency

Expecting some action: predictive processing and the construction of conscious experience

Open access
Nave, Kathryn, Deane, George, Miller, Mark, Clark, Andy·2022·Review of Philosophy and Psychology

Abstract

Abstract Predictive processing has begun to offer new insights into the nature of conscious experience—but the link is not straightforward. A wide variety of systems may be described as predictive machines, raising the question: what differentiates those for which it makes sense to talk about conscious experience? One possible answer lies in the involvement of a higher-order form of prediction error, termed expected free energy. In this paper we explore under what conditions the minimization of this new quantity might underpin conscious experience. Our suggestion is that the minimisation of Expected Free Energy is not in itself sufficient for the occurrence of conscious experience. Instead, it is relevant only insofar as it helps deliver what Ward et al. (2011) have previously described as a sense of our own poise over an action space . Perceptual experience, we will argue, is nothing other than the process that puts current actions in contact with goals and intentions, enabling some creatures to know the space of options that their current situation makes available. This proposal fits with recent work suggesting a deep link between conscious contents and contents computed at an ‘intermediate’ level of processing, apt for controlling action.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13164-022-00644-y

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Arguably, AI-C benefits from a formalised approach that grounds the 'everyday-language' explanations afforded by sensorimotor theory in a computationally tractable account that speaks to underlying neural dynamics.

    “Arguably, AI -C benefits from a formalised approach that grounds the 'everyday -language' explanations afforded by sensorimotor theory (O'Regan, 2023, p. 2) e.g., the notion of being 'poised' to act in a particular way (O'Regan, 2022, p. 3) in a computationally tractable account that speaks to underlying neural dynamics (Nave et al., 2022).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Bruineberg, J. 2017. Active Inference and the Primacy of the 'I Can'. In Philosophy and Predic- tive Processing: 5, eds. T. Metzinger, and W. Wiese, Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group. doi:10.155027/9783958573062. · DOI
  2. Clark, A. 2016. Surfing Uncertainty. NY): Oxford University Press.
  3. Evans, G. 1982. The Varieties of Reference. Oxford University Press.
  4. Hohwy, J. 2013. The Predictive Mind. NY): Oxford University Press.
  5. Hurley, S. L. 1998. Consciousness in action. Harvard University Press.
  6. Schwarz, N. 1990. Feelings as information. Informational and motivational functions of affective states. eds. E. T. Higgins, and R. M. Sorrentino, Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 527 ± 561). New York: Guilford Press
  7. Bridgeman, B., Kirch, M. and Sperling, A., 1981. Segregation of cognitive and motor aspects of visual function using induced motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 29(4), pp.336-342.
  8. Goodale, M.A., Pelisson, D. and Prablanc, C., 1986. Large adjustments in visually guided reaching do not depend on vision of the hand or perception of target displacement. Nature, 320(6064), pp.748-750.
  9. Jackendoff, R. (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind. The MIT Press.
  10. Koch, C. (2004). The quest for consciousness. Engineering and Science, 67(2), 28-34.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nave, K., Deane, G., Miller, M., & Clark, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Hokkaido University (JP)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
Nave, Kathryn
Venue
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
Published
2022-06-10
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
1019-1037
ISSN
  • 1878-5158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-5166
OpenAlex
W4281786305
Cited by
50
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Review of Philosophy and Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
H2020 European Research Council (692739)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
predictive processing, subjective experience, expected free energy, prediction error, perceptual experience, action space, goal-directed action, philosophy of mind, free energy principle

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review