Context effects produced by question orders reveal,quantum nature of human judgments

Hi,

Apparently this human judgment effect can't be explained by "non quantum" conventional statistics, but it is explained when applying the quantum principle of

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
Jamie M
Loading thread data ...

Hi,

Apparently this human judgment effect can't be explained by "non quantum" conventional statistics, but it is explained when applying the quantum? principle of reciprocity.

article:

formatting link

more info and pdf of the paper:

formatting link
formatting link

I'm not sure if this is a quantum effect or just a classical reciprocity effect more likely, in this article?

formatting link

cheers, Jamie

Reply to
Jamie M

On a sunny day (Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:37:32 -0700) it happened Jamie M wrote in :

An other quantum quack .

We electronic types have known that putting a probe somewhere has an effect on what is there since kindergarten.

Of course the sequence and every other external factor changes the way people reply. And of course what is yes-es then becomes no-s as there are only 2 possibilities. what a crap. If I first ask on Usenet about spammers and then about a person, the replies are different than if I ask about a person and then about spammers.

The brain is a neural net, and by asking questions or interacting with it, you change its weights.

As simple as that, plenty of software for free online to build your own and test that.

Those soft sciences idiots really should be required to learn some basic engineering on the side. Else monkey men will put out more and more crap.

And anybody who publishes about 'kwantuum' without a clue shoot bee shod

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

I tend to agree with you and am skeptical there is anything quantum required to explain it, but also I don't really understand what they are talking about. How do you explain this from the article:

"The larger question brought up by this study is "why?" Why must the number of people who switch from "yes-yes" to "no-no" when question order is reversed be offset by the number of people who switch in the opposite direction?

Wang said there is nothing yet proposed in standard psychological theory that would explain why this is true."

I accidentally had posted before finishing my post and you replied to the first one, here is the one I intended to post:

Hi,

Apparently this human judgment effect can't be explained by "non quantum" conventional statistics, but it is explained when applying the quantum? principle of reciprocity.

article:

formatting link

more info and pdf of the paper:

formatting link
formatting link

I'm not sure if this is a quantum effect or just a classical reciprocity effect more likely, in this article?

formatting link

cheers, Jamie

Reply to
Jamie M

On a sunny day (Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:33:05 -0700) it happened Jamie M wrote in :

Well, I wrote what I wrote and stand by it. I do not think there is anything like a 'standard psychological theory'. Having read quite a lot about it in my youth.

Psychology is also culture dependent, and much - if not most of it is complete bullshit, and on the physical level exploited by big farma so to sell drugs that they 1) do not have the slightest clue what those do and their side effects, and 2) do not have the slightest clue of how they work. In my view many of these drugs given to for example kids to keep them sort of half brain dead so they do not irritate teachers, or things against depressions that they have not even a clue about the real causes, do more harm than good and possibly have resulted in people starting randomly killing others. Not that that is only related to drugs, for example Keynian Muslim Black Presidents do it too, using drones and US army and Navy. All that for the money you know. He could be on drugs too, but I think he just is in it for the money and that feeling of power.

They are taking apart brains of people and animals and mapping the neural network, and now rebuilding it in a big machine. If I was to talk about the programs I write as some 'quantum' thing, that would be weird, incorrect, unnecessary, and basically wrong. So there is no need for that shit if you design a simple neural net you can test their 'standard psychological theory' and that is what they should have done. These days I see articles like 'experiments have shown that plants have really feelings -- blah blah blah - ' Makes one wonder.. quantum plants? LOL Standard theory of plants?

OF COURSE they have a mechanism to detect damage and a system to try to repair it.

Many years ago there was this discussion about consciousness, maybe here, maybe sci.physics, and I gave the example of a simple sun shade and a light detector. A system where light closes (lowers) the sun shade. You can say, very simply: That System Is Conscious Of The Sunlight. 'It FEELS' the sunlight and reacts, that is its nervous system. No miracles, no magic no witch dances, no God pulling strings, just SIMPLE. And books and people are quoted over and over again, thoughts, and crap no end. NOBODY starts with the simple, EVERY BODY starts with the complicated, and gets lost. Bottom up will get you there, i once build a robot like that, it really changed my life, cybernetics. Too much bullshit these days, the robot reminded me a lot of myself, and these observations still hold. Keep It Simple. No kwantuums

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

On a sunny day (Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:33:05 -0700) it happened Jamie M wrote in :

Well, I wrote what I wrote and stand by it. I do not think there is anything like a 'standard psychological theory'. Having read quite a lot about it in my youth.

Psychology is also culture dependent, and much - if not most of it is complete bullshit, and on the physical level exploited by big farma so to sell drugs that they 1) do not have the slightest clue what those do and their side effects, and 2) do not have the slightest clue of how they work. In my view many of these drugs given to for example kids to keep them sort of half brain dead so they do not irritate teachers, or things against depressions that they have not even a clue about the real causes, do more harm than good and possibly have resulted in people starting randomly killing others. Not that that is only related to drugs, for example Keynian Muslim Black Presidents do it too, using drones and US army and Navy. All that for the money you know. He could be on drugs too, but I think he just is in it for the money and that feeling of power.

They are taking apart brains of people and animals and mapping the neural network, and now rebuilding it in a big machine. If I was to talk about the programs I write as some 'quantum' thing, that would be weird, incorrect, unnecessary, and basically wrong. So there is no need for that shit if you design a simple neural net you can test their 'standard psychological theory' and that is what they should have done. These days I see articles like 'experiments have shown that plants have really feelings -- blah blah blah - ' Makes one wonder.. quantum plants? LOL Standard theory of plants?

OF COURSE they have a mechanism to detect damage and a system to try to repair it.

No, it doesn't "Feel" sunlight. Its not consciously aware. The same, simple, apparent response is not indication of the same underlying effect. This is trivial to prove. To wit:

Let me know your address and I will come round to your place and give you a firm kick in the balls.

The confusion is, probably, that it is not generally understand that things

exist. Its the only thing you know for certain. Now try and prove that you exist to someone else.

So, its impossible to prove that anyone feels a kick in a balls and a house brick doesn't, but nevertheless, these are both true facts, beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.

formatting link

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.

formatting link
formatting link
- SuperSpice

Reply to
Kevin Aylward

On a sunny day (Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:06:52 +0100) it happened "Kevin Aylward" wrote in :

You are wrong, you live in some ,probably conditioned, idea of consciousness You still think you are special, as did the people of ancient times who though the earth was in the center of the universe (it seems some still do).

You have a death with too it seems.

This is flubbergasted bullshit and nothing to do with it, Descartes & all just a lot of crap.

The issue is consciousness, not thought. YOUR thoughts are no better than the spasms of a snail on hot plate.

And ultimately just a result of the universe unfolding in which you have no influence whatsoever, only think you do, as it has been proven that 'decisions' bubble up from the deeper levels and can be detected by MRI (what you will decide) even before you yourself 'decide'.

All cause and effect, no kwaantuum crap.

You are!

But here you are, you are stuck with it! LOL

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

The human brain is of course a non-classical quantum-effect machine. It would be absurd if it wasn't. Which is why it's so hard to understand, and why things like "neural networks" are such ludicrous, amateurish creations.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Give it a rest, nutcase.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

Hi,

I think that is similar to this:

formatting link

cheers, Jamie

Reply to
Jamie M

pattern.html

So, is anyone on the team named Hari Seldon?

--
Tim Wescott 
Control system and signal processing consulting 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

Actually all this really means is that the arithmetic of asking binary questions of humans is not commutative because the first question asked may prejudice the answer given to the second question. Surveys are always very careful to mix the order of questions and cross check the cohorts for this sort of bias which can be non trivial.

The algebra of quantum mechanics is also non-commutative but that does not make human judgement rely on quantum mechanics.

The reasoning here is about as woolly as Sheep have 4 legs; this animal has four legs so it is a sheep.

Penrose would agree with you, but it is far from clear if the human brain is actually using quantum effects computationally. It looks much more like a very highly interconnected network of classically behaved neurons that happen to use quantum chemistry internally in their construction. Consciousness is an emergent behaviour in a sufficiently complicated neural network and we will eventually be able to build a simulation large enough to see it experimentally as computers become ever more powerful. Very complex patterns can arise from simple rules!

Moore's Law means that building a neural network equivalent to a cats brain is actually now just about possible and a human one work in progress. They are about a factor of 20 short as of 2012 (although the IBM claims were treated with some scepticism even by enthusiasts).

formatting link

If Moore's Law continues to hold then supercomputer simulation of a human brain will become possible (not necessarily in realtime) in under a decade. This will settle the question once and for all experimentally.

Another thing you clearly don't understand. Existing neural networks can already do some very impressive diagnostic things as well as the best trainer that they have encountered. The big problem is that they cannot explain their reasoning in the same way as a real expert.

The same also applies to Bayesian inference learning machines irrespective of how they actually encode their knowledge internally.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

Hi,

I think in the article they are not talking about the binary questions, but instead about questions that could have 4 possible answers, ie. the set of two questions that are asked in different orders giving different results.

So for the two questions A and B and answers T and F for each, there are four possible types of answers:

A: T B: T

A: T B: F

A: F B: T

A: F B: F

The paper is saying that when the question order is switched from AB to BA, then the number of answers from the previous TT result that switch to FF will be approximately equal to the number of answers that switch from FF to TT, this also applies to answers that switch from TF and FT and vise versa. Apparently this equality isn't explained by "non quantum statistics" (according to the paper!)

So the effect they are describing isn't a first order effect of the question order, it is a second order effect.

I find it hard to believe that statistics or some conventional explanation can't explain this result, but if it is true then it is interesting.

ps. anyone have a link or explanation for the "law of reciprocity in quantum theory" that is referenced by the paper?

wikipedia has this but no quantum reference:

formatting link

cheers, Jamie

Reply to
Jamie M

It is a two way contingency table for two questions that if the answers are truly uncorrelated should give an answer T F A: a 1-a B: b 1-b

B T B F

A T ab a(1-b) A F (1-a)b (1-a)(1-b)

Actual behaviour of real people is non ideal.

That is bullshit. It is amenable to analysis by Bayesian techniques.

All it is really saying is that if you ask people one specific question first you can affect how they think about another.

The issue of charitable giving was featured on the BBC numbers program "More or Less" that dissects bogus claims and statistics put about by pundits and governments fairly recently. They had coloured the survey very badly by the questions asked and the order of presentation.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

.html

d

The effect of a sequence of questions was also spelled on the BBC comedy s eries "Yes Minister" quite some time ago (1980-84) when the senior civil se rvant character - played by Nigel Hawthorn - tells the junior character to go out and get the survey results that were required.

When the junior civil servant expresses incomprehension, Hawthorn asks him two sequences of questions, one prompting him to be in favour of spending l ess on defence and one prompting him to be in favour of spending more. It's great writing and even better exposition.

formatting link

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Thanks for the post. Many theoretical physicists think that the nature of consciousness is tied into quantum physics. A review is

"Consciousness" - Eva Herr also: "The Mindful Universe" - Henry Stapp

Stapp is a quantum physicist at LBL (retired) who has written on quantum entanglement and EPR. Many others....

=========================================================== The Woo-Woo Effect

As Karl Popper pointed out, you just need one divergent result to throw a comprehensive theory into doubt. If you say, "All Copper in the universe conducts DC, and I demonstrate a piece that insulates, then you need another theory."

There are some "Woo-Woo" results in consciousness research that contradict mechanistic views of consciousness. I call these "Woo-Woo," after the music on the "Twilight Zone," a creepy TV show in the 60's. Remember, you just need ONE divergent result to collapse a comprehensive Newtonian theory of consciousness.

Some are:

JB Rhine demonstrated a few card guessers who could do better than chance a billion to one. He was very rigorous, and was watched very carefully.

A few papers were published in IEEE journal and Nature. This was remote viewing at SRI. The experimental setup was heavily locked down - shielding, door locks, auditors, the works. The authors, Puthoff and Targ, were able to show a strong effect by certain individuals to remotely "see" inside the remote room.

An individual, Uri Geller, was able to do things that no faker or magician could, given the laws of physics. He is complex, since Uri is both a magician and a faker, as well as a person who violates the laws of physics. Again and again, he did things in front of witnesses who were reputable witnesses. In one, he showed up at the Naval Research Laboratory in Maryland. They presented him with a sealed quartz ampoule containing a single crystal of Silicon. They told him, Break this in two. He did that, without touching the ampoule.

I was, and am, frankly dumb-founded by him. I had a physicist friend who said he presented Uri Geller with a bean sprout and said "reverse this." Uri handed the physicist back a soy bean. When my acquaintance told me this, my spontaneous "WTF?" was of course that he was caught up in some mania and was lying, consciously or unconsciously.

But there are too many impossible things Uri did in front of reputable winesses under scientific conditions to ignore. As a result, rigorous scientific experiments in heavily controlled environments were published in Nature, a very careful journal.

By Popper's standard, he throws the whole "scientific" World View into doubt. (Newton's)

You may not like these results, you may gnash your teeth and scream obscenities, fling excrement like a monkey (figurativly of course), or thrash about, but these results are real.

Yes, folks, it's the Twilight Quantum Zone." Woo Woo (music fades)

jb

PS - I have left "personal woo woo experiences" for another post. Not only mine.

Reply to
haiticare2011

:

g

rn.html

ry

ked

e

es

series "Yes Minister" quite some time ago (1980-84) when the senior civil servant character - played by Nigel Hawthorn - tells the junior character t o go out and get the survey results that were required.

m two sequences of questions, one prompting him to be in favour of spending less on defence and one prompting him to be in favour of spending more. It 's great writing and even better exposition.

formatting link

remember watching as a kids, they are still just as funny/scary

seems there have revived it with new actors, I'm sure you will love this ;)

formatting link

-Lasse

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

Sure, but each neuron has vast, and very fast, computational ability. It's not just some dumb threshold gate. Even single-cell organisms with no neurons have very clever behavior.

Consciousness is an emergent behaviour in a sufficiently

That I doubt. NNs are really dumb.

and we will eventually be able to build a

Nobody has a clue how a brain works.

--
John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc 
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com    
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

You confuse your own interpretation with reality. Single neurons are only fast relative to our speed of perception ~5ms or if you consider

200Hz a "high" frequency. Despite this single cell speed limitation collections of neurons can do some pretty amazing things in realtime.

Neurons are too slow for the brain to handle the blink reflex.

Your lack of any understanding is showing.

ITYM You have no clue.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

Possible either knowingly or unknowingly using counting methods depending on the number of cards in the deck.

ROFL. The CIA spent insane amounts of money on this wild goose chase.

Geller has never been demonstrated to be anything other than a fake with an incredibly good publicity machine behind him. He did take in a few famous physicists for a while in the 1970's. But he could never do anything that The Amazing Randi had set up nor could he do anything that the Amazing Randi could not do by conventional magic trickery.

Actually there is almost nothing done to standards that would pass scrutiny as scientifically controlled conditions because hard scientists like physicists and chemists are not used to their experimental subjects cheating by using misdirection. You *need* a magician to design scientific experiments to test the "paranormal".

Scientists are all too easily fooled by clever magic tricks. (just like anyone else who isn't a magician)

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.