The overfitted brain: Dreams evolved to assist generalization (2021)
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
Being "stuck in a rut," having depression or PTSD, or just being uncreative could be symptoms of the brain having overfit to some past set of stimuli.
You'd think 28 years is a bit long a delay to try to claim a pilfered engineering theory as your own before the medical community? Friston was at least more timely.
The actual review article appears to be a perfectly serviceable review of the topic.
https://www.cell.com/patterns/fulltext/S2666-3899(21)00064-7
And I took it at face value, what am I missing?
"The Genius Neuroscientist Who Might Hold the Key to True AI"
Karl Friston's free energy principle might be the most all-encompassing idea since the theory of natural selection. But to understand it, you need to peer inside the mind of Friston himself.
The gist of the problem is Karl Friston didn't come up with the idea in question, yet somehow he's often promoted publicly much as if he did.
Variational free energy methods generally are pretty amazing. Thanks to mathematicians, physicist, chemists and so on over the course of the last three centuries or so for giving us that. Free energy methods in perception and learning are also very interesting, and that goes back at least to Geoff Hinton, Richard Zemel and Radford Neal in the mid 90s (arguably there is relevant prior work in psychology and energy based ANN before that too). It's hard to believe Friston's application of the theory to brain function (as opposed to earlier in brain imaging) would be independent of having arrived at University College London, where people at Gatsby Unit (Hinton, Peter Dayan, etc) had been working with the methods in innovative and and effective ways for machine learning/artificial intelligence/theoretical neuroscience since the 90s. Yet if you entered the subfield through Friston's citations, which many people now do, due in no small part to glowing personality portraits like the one presented by WIRED, you might easily come away with the impression that the whole field suddenly manifested out of whole cloth between the ears of this Genius Neuroscientist, some time in the 00s.
Friston does have one real distinguishing contribution to his name though, in being the first person to reach wide attention making vocal and bold claims that the "free energy principle" amounts to a largely comprehensive explanation for how the human brain works. Good for him if that turns out to be the case I guess, but personally I'm not aware of any demonstrations that it actually is such a powerful explanation for any mechanisms of brain function.
I have no personal knowledge of Karl Friston, but I've heard he's often well liked in personal contacts. I don't really know enough about the medical imaging methods era of his work to comment on it.
That said like you point out principle of least something will probably work here, as it seems to everywhere.
Plenty of papers disproving this or that mathematical claim from FEP people.
as a matter of fact, the six month where I had to learn thousand pages per week were some of the most miserable I had in the last two years because job kept me away from my newborn, it did a number on my health, and I'm barely returning to normal right now.
I mean, haven't checked about weed as I don't use it, but about alcohol it's one of the most well know facts about it, and there are tons of studies, and mentions in every major work about sleep quality, academic or layman level...
https://sleep.me/post/alcohol-and-sleep
https://www.sleepfoundation.org/nutrition/alcohol-and-sleep
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5821259/
https://thesleepdoctor.com/alcohol-and-sleep/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29073429/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25499829/
Limit alcohol, because alcohol is not a sleep aid, contrary to popular belief. While it might help induce sleep, “alcohol is one of the most powerful suppressors of REM [rapid-eye-movement] sleep,” Walker says:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Sleep-Unlocking-Dreams/dp/1501...
Basically, it's a very badly reviewed article.
Which could very well be true, with a small correction: people who don't dream don't generalize well - their generalization capabilities decline. Or course with people who don't sleep well, their whole mental faculties decline over time.
Even after a couple of days lost sleep, people have been shown to drop several IQ points in standardized tests... and even lower quality sleep can lead to psychosis and worse (which could very well be fueled by lack of generalization).
Plus this "cleaning" process is not the part we remember as a story/dream when we wake: dreaming includes the parts we don't remember, including the botched parts that never fully made it into full deep REM sleep and conscious dreaming. So, people who don't dream will still clean up some of the overfitting, just do a worse job at it...
I've also noted today many people who take cannabis regularly also do not dream often.
All I can assume is this is a pretty common thing I do in my deep sleep dreams and I don't happen to wake up to remember it.
Most of the times I don't remember having dreamt are those when I've been more or less living on autopilot, with nothing novel in work or leisure time. Recently I've had an explosion of vivid dreams that lines up almost perfectly with doing things I'd not had prior experience with when programming in both work and hobby projects.
I've been on a pretty consistent one cup of coffee and occasional second cup over the course of the pandemic. The only way caffeine impacts my sleep is if I have it past 1-2PM, in which case I find it harder to fall asleep and may wake up periodically but will still dream.
The other thing I've noticed is people who smoke a lot of weed seem to report a lack of dreams.
As someone who smokes weed I heard this as well. But from experience I still dream, just that its harder for me to remember them if at all.
I stopped drinking caffeine for a few years (maybe 3?) and have restarted also for a few years (probably 5 now) and I dream fairly rarely both when drinking caffeine and not.
Personally, the amount of sleep I get correlates strongly with the amount that I remember dreams.
I suspect caffeine intake is correlated with sleep deprivation bidirectionally. People who don't have the free time to afford enough sleep tend to drink more caffeine to compensate, and people who drink more caffeine tend to have lower quality of sleep.
So, I suspect that it's the length of sleep that's really the relevant factor here.
I've also heard from several friends that nicotine patches cause very vivid dreams almost every night. Caffeine certainly isn't nicotine, but the case for stimulants in general causing a lack of dreams. Maybe caffeine is an outlier in this regard, but, like I said, I suspect caffeine intake is primarily a confounder for sleep deprivation.
First day light headache. Second day onward totally fine.
Dreams are back!! Not kidding at all. Over the last few days I’ve had much more vivid and sticking dreams. Some of them bad, but dreams nonetheless!
Thanks for putting forth this theory. I will be reducing my caffeine intake permanently. I beleive dreaming is a healthy part of being alive, and I’ve been missing it.
My son also seems to share my abnormal reaction to pain... beyond a fairly tolerable threshold, I go numb. I know I've injured myself somewhat seriously if I feel quickly rising pain followed by numbness. When my tooth got knocked loose, it went numb. The three times I've sprained ankles (once in the woods, 3 days form the nearest hill with cell phone coverage), my ankles have gone numb. The time the cartilage in my nose tore from the bone, it also went numb. Ditto for the time I burned my finger while arc welding (though, I think that time I killed the dentrite back to my spine and it had to grow back out). My son takes a tough fall and other parents look at me like they expect my son is going to cry, and my son just gets up and keeps playing. So, I don't think his nightmare were about pain, either.
I’ve personally decided my conscience mind doesn’t need to bother myself with what my meatware is doing while I sleep. People tell me I don’t dream because I don’t remember them. I think that’s false. Sometimes I remember that I dreamed for a few seconds after a wake up, then it fades. I’ve rolled with it and intentionally forget my dreams. Not my (conscience kinda) business. When I wake it my turn to go get food and water so we can come back to sleep 18 hours later.
I have confirmed this with experiments - I have woken up in the night, written down my dream and went back to sleep.
When I woke up in the morning I couldn't remmeber a thing and the notes seemed like they were written by someone else. There was no 'yeah, i can sort of remmember it" - memory was totally blank. The experiment is fairly repeatable - not every night, but couple times a week.
There are a bunch of different methods for stimulating dreams.
This is actually negativity impacting me. I often get reality confused with something I have dreamed. I cannot always remember if a conversation I had occurred in my dreams or in reality.
The brains pretty primed to forget dreams, but if you consciously think about them you can encourage recall.
At the same time, who knows how accurate that recall is...
For example, an LLM just tries to predict the next token when requested. How does one go from "next token please" to something that "dreams"?
It’s possible they could try training the model on some hallucinated scenarios to avoid over fitting, but I’m no ML researcher.
I believe the answer is yes, you need to leave reality sometimes to undersrand reality. It is a very general pattern, to understand something you need to move out of it.
You cannot see a forest while being in the forest, because trees are obscuring your sight.
You cannot prove all true statements in arithmetic system without extending it. For example it is impossible to find a general solution for a cubic equation in real numbers, you need to go imaginary, find imaginary roots and toss away not real ones. The remaining roots will be real roots of real cubic equation.
You cannot understand limitations of a scientific theory without considering an alternative theory. (Or a more general, or a narrower theory)
You cannot prove hypothesis without disproving an alternative one.
This pattern is everywhere. So it wouldn't surprise me a bit, if it turned out that you cannot digest a real experience without getting some unreal experience as well.
Perhaps they're merely scrambled bits of memories and thoughts that are being reprogrammed when we sleep and sometimes our "self" gets a peek at the sausage being made?
Also occurred to me (thanks to chatGPT) that dreams might be produced in the same way chatGPT produces narratives, by running through a series of "what is likely to be next according to my trained network" decisions
Psychedelics can give a taste of this with the experience of separation of self, where it feels like you're an observer behind the one way mirror watching a focus group deliberate on various topics.
Intelligence is a great example. It's obviously beneficial for both survival and reproduction, so should naturally be highly selected for. But in a society where higher intelligence correlates with lower reproduction, evolution will "select" for lower intelligence. Of course it's not evolution selecting for anything, but our own traits paired against our own outcomes. If it turns out to be beneficial for breeding, we could gradually even "devolve." But the notion of devolution is again somewhat nonsensical, because evolution has no direction.
So for many things I think looking for an evolutionary cause is not really meaningful. If evolution had a direction, we'd all be tardigrades.
Dreams are your subconsciousness asking you, the consciousness, about different scenarios or problems it can think of. That is the most obvious explanation to me. When you are awake then disturbing you could be dangerous, so that has to happen when you sleep. And since you the consciousness has to answer those questions you will experience them as fragments, ie "dreams".
I don't see why dreams would have to be more complicated than that. It is very simple and explains everything.
Misleading title at best. I would say disingenuous.
Because it is learning? If you had this supersmart function that could evaluate situations, why not ask it things when you are training another algorithm that tries to evaluate things cheaper?
Edit: Or just to categorise things in general.
You don't believe animals have a conscious? I thought all humans believes that a dog for example had a consciousness.
> What you're proposing is a dialog between a conscious and subconscious self, while in a dream state, where one or the other (or both) forms of being are fully aware of what questions to ask
You say this is complex, but there is definitely a subroutine that determines when you should sleep, when to wake you up etc. That routine calling you to do some bookkeeping while you are sleeping doesn't add any complexity at all. I don't see why that routine would be smart enough to do everything else, but not smart enough to ask some questions about things when you sleep...
I think it’s a matter of degree. We don’t know what level of consciousness they have relative to our own experience. Can you say with certainty, for example, that a mollusk or sea cucumber has conscious experience?
It is as if there is something damaging about the accumulation of memories, both micro (cellular, nervous) and macro (brain memory), that is incompatible with the way animals evolved.
I believe we would see similar negative effects of why we need sleep if we tried to replicate it without the actual rest, or if human brains were able to survive on long passed 100 years.
But we do know that our subconsciousness can learn to drive or to walk home etc, since we can do that without thinking about it. It has to learn those things somehow, and asking our consciousness about how all the things works, how to react or think about things when we sleep, that is the obvious ways for it to learn and test things from its control. I don't believe you can run the consciousness functions without us remembering it in some way, and that becomes the dreams.
Edit: Maybe the hard part to understand is that people don't want to imagine themselves as a small part of a larger system. We aren't the main thing in control of ourselves, instead there is something that can shut us down, turn us up, invoke parts of us at will etc, that is in control. It just reuses some of the code that runs our consciousness to run other evaluations.
I think this is part of what the other commenter was alluding to with imprecise language.
I don't see how that is different from you being aware of your dreams. Daydreams aren't controlled by you, there is another process you aren't aware of that is feeding you the daydream. Also usually when you daydream you stop being aware of your surroundings, like when walking etc, so some process has to take over that as well. I'm talking about those processes.
By definition, if they were, you wouldn’t be aware of them and wouldn’t remember them. Lots of people dream (and it can be verified with brain scans) without remembering them.
Can you consciously start to dream whenever you want? Otherwise I'd say that they are invoked by a subconscious process.
Also forgetting something doesn't mean that the memory was never there. Even people who remember their dream directly after the night usually quickly forgets about them afterwards, you don't remember most of your dreams from a week ago, so that is easily explained by just saying that they cleaned up the memory of their dream before they woke up.
I'm very good at that though, as I said it is just a process that is asking you questions, and just like you can steer a conversation with what you say you can steer where that process takes the dream by how you behave in it. It will continue asking you about the stuff until it is no longer curious about the situation, and when it is it will steer the dream (conversation) to some other subject, putting you in some completely different environment etc.
I'm not sure why that interpretation is so hard to believe. And I think that process also does a lot of computation that doesn't need to ask the conscious parts about anything, in those cases you wouldn't dream, its just doing something else.
If, as you say, you are aware of something, it is by definition now in your conscious mind. The idea that it originates somewhere else is not a new concept. Buddhists have been claiming “thoughts think themselves” for a long time.
> If, as you say, you are aware of something, it is by definition now in your conscious mind
Yeah, but that is a trivial statement, we all know that "thoughts popping into our head" means that they came from somewhere, I'm not talking about that effect.
To me the difference is like between a function call and a process. The dream is some other part of the brain that wants to know something that you are good at answering, so it asks you that question by posing it in a language you understand, ie the "dream", and then you answer by reacting to the dream, it isn't waking you up it is just making a quick invocation. This is different than what you are talking about, unless I misunderstood you completely.
When you are awake it is more that you are querying the other systems and they put thoughts in your mind as responses. Those responses will be calculated before you are aware of them, creating the "you made the choice before you think you did" effect, but you are still querying them. While when you dream those systems query you and you answer back with your reaction to the dream, meaning you have basically no control at all, and the shape and feel of the dream, when to dream, what to dream etc is decided entirely by that other part.
Or in other words, "dreaming" would be the feeling of being the subsystem others are querying, while "awake" is the feeling of being the main system that is querying others. And just like you ask your subsystems a lot of questions for all sort of reasons, I don't see why our other systems would have just one reason to ask us anything, they probably ask all sort of things for all sort of reasons, as long as querying you for information is useful to them they will do it.
What exactly do you mean by “being” when you talk of “being the subsystem”? What I’m relating is that the very act of “being” (I.e., having a subjective experience) is rooted in the conscious mind. So there’s a natural contradiction that you are somehow “being” the subconscious, because the subconscious is “below conscious experience.” Maybe you have a different definition of subconscious which is why I keep pushing on getting away from wishy-washy usage of the terminology.
"If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically – to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness – or qualitatively – to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious."
The "unconscious" is not understood as being a "hidden consciousness" with its own agency. It's simply understood as the collection of processes in the brain that you are not consciously aware of. All sorts of sensory processing and integration. Things like balance, the syncing of visual and auditory inputs. It's like the brain's standard library.
There's very little support for the idea of some sort of dialogue between conscious and unconscious.
Any assumption that such a process doesn't exist is therefore disproven immediately, we know that none of those can be true. So, since we know that such a process exists, it asking us questions just like we ask it questions seems like a very useful property to have to handle all sorts of bookkeeping and learning. It is a very obvious mechanic in a brain containing two intelligent systems interacting so tightly as these two does.
Your use of terminology leaves so many possible interpretations that it's hard to know exactly what you're trying to communicate. Which makes meaningful discussion nigh-on impossible.
*UNCONSCIOUS*
is. Moreover, the way you imprecisely use ill-defined phrases like "subconsciousness", "asking questions", etc gives a very strong impression that you're talking about some outdated, pseudoscientific conception of the unconscious mind as a conscious, distinct entity.You can't be so imprecise and just expect people to understand what you mean. Especially if you don't even read the replies.
Edit: And "asking questions" is just a more natural language way to say "invoking a function to get a result". It wants to compute something that the consciousness is good at computing, like where to go or what to do in scenarios. Exactly why etc, that is very hard to answer for such an intelligent process, we don't even know why it decides to turn the wheel at exact moments etc, trying to answer why it asks specific questions is even harder than that. So, the way these psychologists approach it, trying to think of it as a simple function with simple rules, will never ever work.
'They can find their way home, or drive your car etc, without you having to think about driving or where to go, you just zone out and before you realize it you are home.'
Every weekend I do a 12 mile walk, mostly rural roadside with little traffic.At one crossing point, a week ago, a couple in a vehicle stopped me and asked if I realized that I had just wandered across the road without looking and they had almost run me other.
I explained that I was totally oblivious, had not heard their vehicle approaching and thanked them for them their concern.
Today, halfway across the road, I just realized that I was doing the exact same thing at more or less the exact same point.
I wonder now if my subconscious is trying to kill me?
Let me point that "we don't control" and "in your brain" is a contradiction somehow. If it's in your brain, it's you. I'd simply say "you are your brain" and call it a day. A programmer metaphor: you start a thread that acts more or less on its own and never really dumps result to the main thread or registers its course in the memory, but it doesn't mean that it's "another you" in the brain.
Sometimes you wake up at night and then never remember that moment, it doesn't settle in the memory, unless something happens that keeps you awaken, the you do remember the moment. My point is that what surfaces and gets recalled it's not you and then there's "another intelligent system" with different rules, just a subsystem that most of the time is unattended.
So you can fall asleep whenever you want? You never spend minutes lying in bed trying to sleep but being unable to? Otherwise no, you aren't in control of your brain, your brain is in control of you. It decides when you get to compute and experience things, you don't get to, if it wants you to work you work, if it wants you to sleep you sleep, you aren't in control.
In other words, I can fall asleep whenever I want. But "I" (and my brain) is not just my conscious/speaking layer. The whole layer stack needs to want it and put it to practice.
It's the same with any other activity, just that for most there's less disagreement between parts of the layer stack. E.g. we can usually speak anytime "we" want. But an autistic person going non-verbal finds that they can't speak, even if their (what-you-call "I") thinking/top-layer wants it.
No, I meant that whether they wanted it or not at the "top layer" (the conscious "I") is irrelevant, the whole brain stack needs to "want it" (or at least, a big enough chunk of it, so that it's put to action).
>To most people "I" are the parts they control, the rest they talk about as if it was something else.
Of course, but most people are not trying to be precise and reason about their brain workings, the way conginitive science or TFA does. They just use whatever simplified mental model is handy, accuracy be damned.
People also historically believed that "I" is the "soul" too...
This is only true if you equate "self" with "body", which is a fairly narrow assertion that breaks down quickly when confronted with the complex reality of human experience (e.g. dissociation [0]).
Even the "conscious you" is not really a discrete entity when it comes to self-perception. There are many useful approaches in psychology that regard that "conscious you" as being a composition of a team of several things with differing motivations [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociation_(psychology)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Family_Systems_Model
Are you suggesting that dissociation involves something outside the body?
Because otherwise what happens --and it's clear in the [0] link you provide-- is that a part of the brain struggle to connect with the rest. That doesn't mean that there is more than one you, but that you suffer a condition that fragments your brain work.
That happens in serious mental illness, also in altered states, see "K-Hole" induced by ketamine. But it's more of "you" disconnected from the perception.
If you take a moment to review the whole thread, not just the immediate comment above the one you're responding to, you'll see that it was started with a mention to subconscious as described by Freud in his early works. The objection to that has been that it's not a concept that's commonly accepted now in that precise form, because it suggests that there is another personality inside your mind, similarly structured as the main consciousness.
The first comment says that the "subsconscious ask the conscious self", or something like that, that implies a rational actor following a strategy to confront the ego, a different structure.
We still know little of the brain working, but it seems to be a massively parallel computing process, with the perception being the glue that composes our reality and keeping us "sane" and focused.
No. I'm saying that a singular body does not imply or require a singular "self", which can be demonstrated via dissociation.
>That doesn't mean that there is more than one you, but that you suffer a condition that fragments your brain work.
If each fragment can have a discrete and unique experience of reality, then why can't each one can be thought of as a separate 'you'?
>That happens in serious mental illness, also in altered states
Maybe it's not about "suffering a condition" or mental illness at all, and more commonplace than we may realize. We pathologize far too much. The experiences we believe are the result of "altered states" may actually be quite common.
>We still know little of the brain working, but it seems to be a massively parallel computing process, with the perception being the glue that composes our reality and keeping us "sane" and focused.
Without delving into the debate around brain-as-a-computer, I think I get the general idea of what you're saying and I somewhat agree.
However, my argument is that even this overarching perception itself is not necessarily singular. We seem to mostly collect and normalize these discrete perceptions (or parallel processes) into what seems like a single stream, but delving deeper reveals that this composition is not nearly as seamless & continuous as one may believe.
We agree completely on that. I love when I catch some falling object on the fly and it feels instantaneous, asynchronous, as if someone else was doing it, specially when it's done through a series of very fast bounces. Or playing piano with both hands, each doing its part. It's possible to feel both or none.
But anyway, my objection is not to defend a monolithic self, but against more than one self. Actually, original subconscious theory seems less tollerant of a parallel, multithreaded mind: "if something can be done without the complete control of the ego, it must be because there is another consistent, self-contained structure in there with its own will" while accepting that the mind is not necessarily centralized could explain the same observations.
As the other commenter states, are you not aware identity dissociative disorders are a thing?
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dissociative-....
> You may feel the presence of two or more people talking or living inside your head, and you may feel as though you're possessed by other identities. Each identity may have a unique name, personal history and characteristics, including obvious differences in voice, gender, mannerisms and even such physical qualities as the need for eyeglasses.
That some experience this failure modality in how the brain/mind works does suggest in some cases there's more to consciousness than that reductive explanation you've given.
These are irrelevant in the context of the discussion and the argument being made.
That "you may feel the presence of two or more people [or intelligences] talking or living inside your head" does not mean "two or more people" indeed live inside your head.
Same way as if you feel that your neighbor "is satan" or that "everybody is out to get you" doesn't make it true. It's a failure mode of one brain, not a proof of two (or more) brains.
What makes you think this points to "intelligent processes" (in the sense of processes having intelligence)?
It just points to some processing being done in the background, and some processing reaching the top layer ("conscious"). But "thinking "is the totality of it, not just the top layer.
You are identifying "subconscious" as in "I did it without minding it" with "subconscious" as a structured personality inside your mind with autonomous will and reasoning.
When you learn to do something physical, like driving or playing the piano, you start with a strong conscious focus in what you're doing, until you have it automated and, once you have it totally mastered, you send it to the background.
That's a very different story from a whole "you", different from the "regular you", thinking rationally inside your mind and making all the things that you don't feel you're doing with your full attention.
And yes, there are unconscious processes that influence behaviour, only they're not organized the same way the conscious part is. At least, that's the conclusion I take from what I've read on the subject. Are modern researchers right and Freud wrong? I tend to think so, because they have a hundred years more evidence.
One can't explain the workings of the brain as some Q&A between "conscious" and "unconscious" except as a high level abstraction/metaphor. Else this implies two tiny "thinking" entities inside your brain, where one asks another something.
Since hearing about this theory, I've been able to pin point my dreams 90% of the time to themes that were discussed or experienced during the day I fell asleep. Including topics I had only worried about but never mentioned to anyone.
This hypothesis is at least as good as yours, and requires fewer assumptions.
For the record, I’m also very inclined to believe that even in the waking life the “conscious mind” has vastly less command authority than it likes to think, mostly receiving “executive memos” when the actual decision has already been made by the faster parts of the brain.
I'm not basing it on any facts or data. It's just funny how our gut instincts are so different.