Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Beatrice · **#101** by **Beatrice** » Feb 05, 2013 3:47 am

But I googled Wave Greek Military! I watched The Men Who Stare at Goats! I tried! :waah:

Mr.Samsa · **#102** by **Mr.Samsa** » Feb 05, 2013 4:46 am

jamest wrote:I had no idea where to put this thread, so move it where you will. I'm semi-aware of a claim by Penrose that consciousness might be reducible to quantum mechanics, though know little about it. Therefore, I am interested in knowing whether the mathematics of quanta can in any way be mapped onto the mathematics of human choice and behaviour. Has there been any research into this idea?

I've been reading the thread and although I'm not clued up on the details of quantum mechanics, I'll try to explain some of the thoughts and issues I had regarding your questions. Also, I tried to read all the comments in the thread but apologies if I'm repeating an argument someone has already presented.

The main issue that jumped out at me is that you seem to be trying to compare the study of quantum behavior to the study of macro behavior (i.e. human behavior). As far as I know, even the emergent behavior of objects doesn't conform to quantum principles because they are operating on vastly different levels. This is one of the predominant arguments against the Penrose-Hameroff ideas of consciousness, as the changes in the quantum behavior of neurons and various brain processes are so far removed from the higher-order behavior of human choice and action that it is functionally irrelevant - at least, it's irrelevant enough to have very little impact on something complex like consciousness. In other words, the collapsing of a wavefunction in my brain is unlikely to significantly change my breakfast eating behavior from choosing cereal to deciding to down a bottle of bleach.

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. Such would lend much weight to theories from the likes of Penrose, of course.

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.

Are you asking if human behavior has been mathematically mapped onto theories of quantum mechanics, or just whether they have been mathematically mapped in a way that is similar to the mathematical theories of quantum mechanics? If the former, then there are none that I know of and I'd argue that it is impossible to do so (predicting large scale behavior from such removed and minor events is surely theoretically impossible in a chaotic system like human behavior, in the same way we couldn't predict weather patterns based on the flapping of butterfly wings even if they do have some impact on the weather). If the latter, then of course there are a number of mathematical theories of human behavior and I can provide more detail if you specify a particular behavior (as asking for the "mathematical theory of human behavior" is like asking for the "mathematical theory of physics" - there's not one that applies to everything, but many interconnected theories and equations).

To answer your last question, I hope objective study of human behavior isn't impossible, otherwise I'd be stuck trying to figure out why all these equations of human behavior seem to be so accurate in predicting human behavior.

:cheers:

josephchoi · **#103** by **josephchoi** » Feb 05, 2013 8:49 am

Ainur wrote:And this is why this site will always be a home for recycled ignorance. Enjoy your party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

Rumraket · **#104** by **Rumraket** » Feb 05, 2013 8:53 am

Ainur wrote:And this is why this site will always be a home for recycled ignorance. Enjoy your party.

You're welcome back any time, if you bring beer. It's not the thought that counts. :drunk:

Reeve · **#105** by **Reeve** » Feb 05, 2013 11:30 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Reeve wrote:It's fascinating to me that people just dismiss Penrose's ideas without even understanding what it is that they're dismissing. Such as on the so-called "RationalWiki"

Edit: Also the rational wiki is not up to date with the science of Penrose's idea. Tegmark has not conclusively dealt the hypothesis a finishing blow yet.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/Cosmology160.html

For a start, that hasn't happened here. I also doubt that RW dismisses it 'without understanding it' - more like it has a single paragraph on it then 2 citations about falsifications of the Orch OR model

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_co ... er_Penrose

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3049/

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4219.full.pdf+html

If people are not understanding it - there's the very real possibility that it's incomprehensible because it's wrong. When the authors still haven't addressed dozens of criticisms of their claims decades later, one has to wonder whether they understand it either.

Thanks for the links. :thumbup:

Hameroff was at the Google Tech Talks in 2010. You might want to check it out.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s[/youtube]

jamest · **#106** by **jamest** » Feb 05, 2013 12:04 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:
If the former, then there are none that I know of and I'd argue that it is impossible to do so (predicting large scale behavior from such removed and minor events is surely theoretically impossible in a chaotic system like human behavior,

Yes, so any such equation(s) would only be applicable to any given event given the right set of circumstances. Those circumstances, insofar as possible, would have to be the same for all individuals. Therefore, only statistical evidence from controlled/experimental studies, as opposed to field studies, would probably be of relevance.

I now realise that such experimental analysis would be very difficult, if not impossible, as what would be required is an experiment where one outcome was more likely from numerous outcomes. In other words, we would have to cater to the probabilistic nature of the individuals to see if this mirrored the probabilistic nature of quanta.

tolman · **#107** by **tolman** » Feb 05, 2013 12:32 pm

jamest wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
If the former, then there are none that I know of and I'd argue that it is impossible to do so (predicting large scale behavior from such removed and minor events is surely theoretically impossible in a chaotic system like human behavior,

Yes, so any such equation(s) would only be applicable to any given event given the right set of circumstances. Those circumstances, insofar as possible, would have to be the same for all individuals. Therefore, only statistical evidence from controlled/experimental studies, as opposed to field studies, would probably be of relevance.

I now realise that such experimental analysis would be very difficult, if not impossible, as what would be required is an experiment where one outcome was more likely from numerous outcomes. In other words, we would have to cater to the probabilistic nature of the individuals to see if this mirrored the probabilistic nature of quanta.

You still haven't given any meaningful indication what you mean by 'mathematically/statistically modelling human behaviour'.

If you had unlimited numbers of people to examine the decisions or behaviour of, how would you expect any statistics regarding the decisions or behaviours of those people to either add to or subtract from people's feelings regarding how likely Penrose is to be right.

You must have some idea what you mean, so please share it.

What kind of 'equations' do you expect to be able to obtain?

How, in those 'equations', would you account for all the parameters of the experimental setup a subject was in, and for the prior life histories of all the various participants?

Spearthrower · **#108** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 05, 2013 1:12 pm

Ainur wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Fap fap fap.

If the shoe fits --- then it becomes difficult to look in the mirror. Considering the quality of your posts on this and other threads you certainly have the time of offer something other than contempt. What do you have to offer to the conversation?

Fap fap fap.

Spearthrower · **#109** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 05, 2013 1:13 pm

Ainur wrote:And this is why this site will always be a home for recycled ignorance. Enjoy your party.

Fap fap... ptwooooooeeeeeeeeeeeearrgh.

Ahh that was good, eh Ainur?

Next time, do it in private.

Spearthrower · **#110** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 05, 2013 1:15 pm

Reeve wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Reeve wrote:It's fascinating to me that people just dismiss Penrose's ideas without even understanding what it is that they're dismissing. Such as on the so-called "RationalWiki"

Edit: Also the rational wiki is not up to date with the science of Penrose's idea. Tegmark has not conclusively dealt the hypothesis a finishing blow yet.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/Cosmology160.html

For a start, that hasn't happened here. I also doubt that RW dismisses it 'without understanding it' - more like it has a single paragraph on it then 2 citations about falsifications of the Orch OR model

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_co ... er_Penrose

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3049/

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4219.full.pdf+html

If people are not understanding it - there's the very real possibility that it's incomprehensible because it's wrong. When the authors still haven't addressed dozens of criticisms of their claims decades later, one has to wonder whether they understand it either.

Thanks for the links.

Hameroff was at the Google Tech Talks in 2010. You might want to check it out.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s[/youtube]

Yeah I've seen that, but thanks for posting it.

It's chronic. I remember a number of such terrible performances. I don't understand how he keeps getting invites. The only manner in which I can see it occurring is something like 'It's quantum. No one understands quantum. Therefore anyone prepared to talk confidently about quantum is invited.'

Reeve · **#111** by **Reeve** » Feb 05, 2013 6:51 pm

BlackBart · **#112** by **BlackBart** » Feb 05, 2013 7:38 pm

Argumentum Ad Googleityourself... Flouncing... I'm betting on Shakers next.

tolman · **#113** by **tolman** » Feb 05, 2013 8:53 pm

I'm waiting to hear what the jamest's 'equations governing human behaviour' are supposed to be.

Given the nature of the subject, they must be some very big equations.

kennyc · **#114** by **kennyc** » Feb 05, 2013 9:02 pm

iamthereforeithink wrote:
Blackadder wrote:

[EDIT] Here's another place that gives a rational take on Penrose's and other's ideas about this subject:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness

That doesn't seem to be an objective and unbiased article. Equating Penrose-Hameroff with the likes of Deepak Chopra is grossly unfair. The Orch-OR theory has received much valid criticism, but it is inaccurate to claim that Tegmark etc. have conclusively falsified it. The Wikipedia article presents a much more objective critique: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrat ... #Criticism

It's absolutely fair and correct because that is exactly what Penrose is claiming with no proof or even reasonable logic what-so-ever. They are both so full of woo they are woo-balloons.

Reeve · **#115** by **Reeve** » Feb 05, 2013 9:26 pm

kennyc wrote:
iamthereforeithink wrote:
Blackadder wrote:

[EDIT] Here's another place that gives a rational take on Penrose's and other's ideas about this subject:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness

That doesn't seem to be an objective and unbiased article. Equating Penrose-Hameroff with the likes of Deepak Chopra is grossly unfair. The Orch-OR theory has received much valid criticism, but it is inaccurate to claim that Tegmark etc. have conclusively falsified it. The Wikipedia article presents a much more objective critique: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrat ... #Criticism

It's absolutely fair and correct because that is exactly what Penrose is claiming with no proof or even reasonable logic what-so-ever. They are both so full of woo they are woo-balloons.

Wroooooooooooooooooong.

It shows that you haven't read Penrose's books.

There is evidence that microtubules might be where consciousness is at. He has some logical arguments in Shadows as to why consciousness can't be something based on "classic" physics.

Macdoc · **#116** by **Macdoc** » Feb 05, 2013 9:36 pm

"evidence"....??

You say it can't be based on classical physics and then cite evidence.
So....show the evidence :coffee:

kennyc · **#117** by **kennyc** » Feb 05, 2013 9:49 pm

Macdoc wrote:"evidence"....??

You say it can't be based on classical physics and then cite evidence.
So....show the evidence

This. Penrose is spouting the same sort of woo as chpora.

Mr.Samsa · **#118** by **Mr.Samsa** » Feb 05, 2013 10:14 pm

jamest wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
If the former, then there are none that I know of and I'd argue that it is impossible to do so (predicting large scale behavior from such removed and minor events is surely theoretically impossible in a chaotic system like human behavior,

Yes, so any such equation(s) would only be applicable to any given event given the right set of circumstances. Those circumstances, insofar as possible, would have to be the same for all individuals. Therefore, only statistical evidence from controlled/experimental studies, as opposed to field studies, would probably be of relevance.

Why would we need "the right set of circumstances"? The circumstances can change, just the equation we use changes. The relevant variables of the equations are the same for all individuals because all people learn and behave according to the same laws. And this evidence isn't simply "statistical"; that is, I'm not talking about observing behavior and then describing the broad statistics that broadly cover their behavior. Instead we're talking about causal laws of behavior that allow us to not only predict but also to control behavior by manipulating relevant variables - this isn't possible with only statistical descriptions. Because we're not just talking about statistical descriptions, it is easy to transfer these behavioral laws from basic research to real-world situations and field studies, as the research has consistently demonstrated.

jamest wrote:I now realise that such experimental analysis would be very difficult, if not impossible, as what would be required is an experiment where one outcome was more likely from numerous outcomes. In other words, we would have to cater to the probabilistic nature of the individuals to see if this mirrored the probabilistic nature of quanta.

The experimental analysis isn't impossible as we don't need to explicitly name all possible outcomes. For example, if we want somebody to perform a particular behavior we have to alter the consequences of their actions to make that behavior more likely to occur than other behaviors. These "other behaviors" are essentially infinite and could be generated/maintained by various contingencies of their own, however, as Herrnstein demonstrated back in the 60s, we can avoid the problems by simply conceptualising them as category of their own that consist entirely of "other behaviors". Once we have done that, we can fit it into a choice equation and contrast it with the behavior we want to change. This is why Herrnstein suggested that all behaviors were choice behaviors, as the decision to behave in one way is necessarily the choice to not behave otherwise.

The behavior of humans is probabilistic but since it's still determined by observable variables, we can predict and control behavior.

tolman · **#119** by **tolman** » Feb 06, 2013 12:09 am

Maybe we should wait for jamest to give the slightest indication what kinds of 'outcomes' he actually thinks 'mathematics/statistics' can produce 'equations' about before going off on tangents, behaviourist or otherwise.

Mr.Samsa wrote:The behavior of humans is probabilistic but since it's still determined by observable variables, we can predict and control behavior.

Some people can predict or control some behaviours of some people, some of the time.

Precisely how much of the rest is is down to information which experimenters don't know, oversimplified or otherwise flawed models, the natural unpredictable behaviour of chaotic systems, or other causes?
Since we'd need to know that before trying to assign any remainder to Quantum causes.

To prove 'quantum', someone seems like they have to be pretty confident about the extent of all the dirty things which mess up their predictions.
Including knowing pretty precisely how wrong their assumptions are, and exactly what they are in ignorance about.

jamest, I see your uncertainty, and raise you one load of chaos, and two unknown unknowns.
And some stuff neither of us have thought of yet.

Mr.Samsa · **#120** by **Mr.Samsa** » Feb 06, 2013 12:22 am

tolman wrote:Maybe we should wait for jamest to give the slightest indication what kinds of 'outcomes' he actually thinks 'mathematics/statistics' can produce 'equations' about before going off on tangents, behaviourist or otherwise.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding him then but I thought what he was asking was pretty straightforward: if humans are probabilistic systems like that of quantum physics, do we have mathematical laws that describe human behavior in the same way we have laws that describe the behavior of quantum particles? The kinds of 'outcomes' are simply decisions and choices. Jamest will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong though.

tolman wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:The behavior of humans is probabilistic but since it's still determined by observable variables, we can predict and control behavior.

Some people can predict or control some behaviours of some people, some of the time.

Well, all people [who know the laws of behavior] can predict and control all the behaviors of all people all of the time [given enough knowledge of variables]. The practicalities of this make it impossible in reality, in the same way knowing the laws of physics doesn't change the impossibility of predicting the movement of all falling objects in the real world but for some reason people rarely doubt the power of physics or assert the autonomy of falling objects based on ignorance of variables and random statistical fluctuations.

tolman wrote:Precisely how much of the rest is is down to information which experimenters don't know, oversimplified or otherwise flawed models, the natural unpredictable behaviour of chaotic systems, Quantum Stuff, or other causes?

Because to prove 'quantum', someone seems like they have to be pretty confident about the extent of all the dirty things which mess up their predictions.
Including knowing pretty precisely how wrong their assumptions are, and exactly what they are in ignorance about.

I see your uncertainty, and raise you one load of chaos, and two unknown unknowns.

Certainly - to try to explain human behavior in terms of quantum processes in the brain is absurd. It would be a physical impossibility, at least as a model in itself.

Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Re: Quantum probability and human choice & behaviour

Who is online