Posted: Feb 04, 2013 11:42 pm
jamest wrote:I appreciate the links, but here I'm more concerned with whether a statistical analysis of human behaviour has facilitated a mathematical expression of such (using equations), to the extent that it can be compared to the mathematics of quantum behaviour.
What would a 'statistical analysis of human behaviour' actually involve?
What would be chosen to look at?
How would things be measured?
How would external influences be accounted for?
jamest wrote:Such would lend much weight to theories from the likes of Penrose, of course.
Why of course?
How could your 'statistical analysis' provide any information which could meaningfully point to Penrose's hypothesis being a better match than, for example, someone considering the brain to be a highly complex, continually self-reprogramming analogue computer, existing in and interacting with a body which distracted it and influenced its moods in numerous ways
Wouldn't you need to have some idea what kinds of 'statistics' might be predicted by (or consistent with) various ideas about how the brain/mind works?
jamest wrote:So, has the various statistical evidence of human behaviour exhibited any kind of enduring pattern sufficient to enable an all-encompassing mathematical expression of such? Probably not. Does this mean that we don't have enough statistical evidence of human behaviour, or does the existing evidence already suggest that no such patterns exist? Or, is an objective study of human behaviour just impossible? If so, why? Etc..
Now we're in the realms of psychology, more useful responses might be forthcoming.
Sounds more like we're in the realms of asking about the mathematics of human behaviour without giving much clue as to what that is supposed to mean.
Whether that is a result of the asker having no clue themselves will presumably become apparent if they persist in asking woefully ill-defined questions.