How Brains Make Decisions

This chapter, dedicated to the memory of Mino Freund, summarizes the Quantum Decision Theory (QDT) that we have developed in a series of publications since 2008. We formulate a general mathematical scheme of how decisions are taken, using the point of view of psychological and cognitive sciences, without touching physiological aspects. The basic principles of how intelligence acts are discussed. The human brain processes involved in decisions are argued to be principally different from straightforward computer operations. The difference lies in the conscious-subconscious duality of the decision making process and the role of emotions that compete with utility optimization. The most general approach for characterizing the process of decision making, taking into account the conscious-subconscious duality, uses the framework of functional analysis in Hilbert spaces, similarly to that used in the quantum theory of measurements. This does not imply that the brain is a quantum system, but just allows for the simplest and most general extension of classical decision theory. The resulting theory of quantum decision making, based on the rules of quantum measurements, solves all paradoxes of classical decision making, allowing for quantitative predictions that are in excellent agreement with experiments. Finally, we provide a novel application by comparing the predictions of QDT with experiments on the prisoner dilemma game. The developed theory can serve as a guide for creating artificial intelligence acting by quantum rules.

[1]  R. A. Leibler,et al.  On Information and Sufficiency , 1951 .

[2]  M. Allais Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1953 .

[3]  A. Luria Higher Cortical Functions in Man , 1980, Springer US.

[4]  J. Gibbs Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics , 1902 .

[5]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Quantum Decision Theory as Quantum Theory of Measurement , 2008, ArXiv.

[6]  J. Pratt RISK AVERSION IN THE SMALL AND IN THE LARGE11This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant NSF-G24035). Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. , 1964 .

[7]  K. Richardson The making of intelligence , 1999 .

[8]  D. Sornette,et al.  Entanglement production in quantum decision making , 2010, 1003.3761.

[9]  L. J. Savage,et al.  The Foundations of Statistics , 1955 .

[10]  Mark J. Machina,et al.  NON-EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY , 2007 .

[11]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Physics of risk and uncertainty in quantum decision making , 2008, ArXiv.

[12]  A. Trewavas Green plants as intelligent organisms. , 2005, Trends in plant science.

[13]  Finn E. Kydland,et al.  Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans , 1977, Journal of Political Economy.

[14]  M. Rabin Risk Aversion and Expected Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem , 2000 .

[15]  I. Rutkow Surgical decision making. The reproducibility of clinical judgement. , 1982, Archives of surgery.

[16]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Role of Information in Decision Making of Social Agents , 2012 .

[17]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Processing Information in Quantum Decision Theory , 2008, Entropy.

[18]  K. Stanovich What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought , 2009 .

[19]  S. Kullback,et al.  Information Theory and Statistics , 1959 .

[20]  D. McFadden Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice , 1981 .

[21]  N. Bohr,et al.  Light and Life , 1933, Nature.

[22]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Mathematical Structure of Quantum Decision Theory , 2008, Adv. Complex Syst..

[23]  Niels Bohr,et al.  Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge , 1958 .

[24]  Zvi Safra,et al.  Calibration Results for Non‐Expected Utility Theories , 2005 .

[25]  Apostolos P. Georgopoulos,et al.  Networks of the Brain. By Olaf Sporns. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press. $40.00. xi + 412 p. + 15 pl.; ill.; index. ISBN: 978-0-262-01469-4. 2011. , 2012 .

[26]  E. Jaynes Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics , 1957 .

[27]  D. Graeber Debt: The First 5000 Years , 2011 .

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[29]  H. Sørensen,et al.  Lauge-Hansen classification of malleolar fractures. An assessment of the reproducibility in 118 cases. , 1990, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[30]  Josef Perner,et al.  The Disjunction Effect: Does It Exist for Two-Step Gambles? , 2001, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[31]  Vyacheslav I. Yukalov,et al.  Phase transitions and heterophase fluctuations , 1991 .

[32]  Frederico A. C. Azevedo,et al.  Equal numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled‐up primate brain , 2009, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[33]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[34]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Disjunction Effect in Choice under Uncertainty , 1992 .

[35]  Jonathan Weinstein,et al.  THE AMBIGUITY AVERSION LITERATURE: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT , 2009, Economics and Philosophy.

[36]  Dale Riepe,et al.  Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. , 1960 .

[37]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement , 2011, ArXiv.

[38]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Scheme of thinking quantum systems , 2009, ArXiv.

[39]  K. Arrow Essays in the theory of risk-bearing , 1958 .

[40]  Solomon Kullback,et al.  Information Theory and Statistics , 1960 .

[41]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[42]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[43]  D. Ellsberg Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms , 1961 .

[44]  K. Mainzer Thinking in complexity , 1994 .

[45]  Edi Karni,et al.  On the Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment: New Experimental Evidence , 2008, Games Econ. Behav..

[46]  D. Bernoulli Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , 1954 .