Skip to main content
  • 1159 Accesses

Abstract

The purpose of the decision-making process is to determine the results while committing a categorical statement or proposition. A statement or proposition is a sentence which is either true or false. A categorical proposition or statement relates two classes or categories. This process is used widely in many disciplines, for example, in complex scientific, engineering, economical, and management situations. It is necessary to consider all possible rational, heuristic, and intuitive selections so that we can summarize the results in arriving at a decision. The diversified and broad range of interests for understanding this process have induced scientific researcher also to employ a diverse and broad range of research methodologies. They began by exploring other related but independent avenues of thinking, for example, taking into account the many methods of empirical observations, together with developing essentially-related mathematical analysis, including many kinds of computational modelling. Following this mode of search, it would be possible, theoretically, to identify a method for making crucial observations. In turn, its consequences continue to enrich philosophical discourses and to further fragment decision research. Many major attempts have been made to develop independent perspectives connected to various frameworks, such as; game theory, Bayesian models, and expected utility models; models connected to behavioral decision; and approaches related to information processing for neural networks and cognitive architectures. It has already been recognized that axiomatic, as well as other kind of rigorous models of the cognitive decision making, are very much needed. The recent empirical findings in the cognitive domain clearly suggest the necessity of changing the paradigm from classical Bayesian probability theory to quantum probability to construct the model of decision making in a consistent manner. However, quantum probability is an extension of quantum logic which only incorporates the contradictions arising out of the simultaneous existence of two mutually exclusive events in a logical way rather than discarding them. It gives rise to a new possibility to model certain degrees of contradictions involved in emotions, as well as to quantify the effect of emotions on judgments and decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., Gabora, L., & Sozzo, S. (2013). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(03), 274-276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, M., Nairz, O. & Vos-Andreae et al (1999). Nature, 401,680-682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayes, T. (1763/1958). Biometrica, 45,296-315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beers R.J. van, Wolpart, D.M. & Haggart, P. (2002). Current Biology;12(100; 834-837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box, G.E.P. & Tiao, G.C. (1973). Bayesian Inference in Statistical analysis.Wiley; ISBN 0-471-57428-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Townsend, J. T. (2006). Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50(3), 220-241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatter N., Tenenbaum J.B. et al. (2006). Trends in Cognitive Science, Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. (2010). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, B. Biol. Sci.; 365;(1538):319-330.; ibid; (2013); Behavioral and Brain Sciences, p 181-204; doi 10.1017/S01405X12000477.

  • Conte, E., Khrennikov, A. Y., Todarello, O., Federici, A., Mendolicchio, L., & Zbilut, J. P. (2009). Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures. Open Systems & Information Dynamics, 16(01), 85-100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1996). Cognition, Elsevier.; ibid; (2005); Evolutionary psychology, “Conceptual foundations, D.M. Buss (ed.); Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology”, New York, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, P. (1967). Annals of mathematical Statistics, 38, 325-339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derksen, H.E. & Verveen, A. (1966). Science,151;1388-1389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards Ward (1954), Psychological bulletin;41;380-417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H.J. & Hogarth, M. (1981). Ann. Rev. Psychol.,32,53-88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feynman, R., Leighton, R.R. & Sands, M. (1964,1966). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 3 volumes; ibid; Feynman, R. & Hibbs, A.R. (1965); “Quantum Mechanics & Path Integrals”;McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frieden, B. Roy (1998, 2004). Science from Fisher information; AUnification; Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershenson Carlos (1999). Modelling Emotions with Multidimensional Logic; http://cogprints.org/1479/1/mdlemotions.html.

  • Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception; (Houghton Mifflin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Giang, P.H. & Shenoy, P.P. (2005). European Journal of Operational Research, 162,(2),450-467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Psychological review, 98(4), 506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths,T.L., Kemp, C. & Tenenbaum,J.B. (2008). Bayesian Models of Cognition in R.Sun(ed.), Cambridge University;

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010). Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(8), 357-364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking Ian, M. (1975). The emergence of probability: A Philosophical Study of Early ideas about Probability, Cambridge University Press;

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanggi, P. (2002); A European Journal Chem Phys Chem of Chemical Physics and and Physical Chemistry “Chem.phys.Chem” 3, pp. 285-290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haven E. & Khrennikov A. (2013). Quantum Social Science. Cambridge University Press, p. 128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisenberg, W. (1968). In “Quantum Theoretical Reinterpretation of Kinetic and Mechanical Reactions” Sources of quantum Mechanics(English translation); ed. B.L. Van der Waerden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, E. (1999). CHI’99. Proceedings of the Sigchi conference on Human factors in Computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 159-165

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadane, J.R. & Larkey, P.D. (1982). Management Science, 28(2) pp. 113-120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). American psychologist; 58(9), 697-720

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolmogorov, A.N (1933/1950). Foundations of theory of probability, N.Y., Chelsea Publ Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozima, H. (2013). Japanese Psychol. Research, Special issue: Cognitive Sci. approach to Developmental disorders”; H. Murohashi(ed.) 55(2),168-174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1990). Papers from the 2 nd Symposium on Logic & language, Lászlo Kámán & Pólos(eds.); Budapest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwisthout John & Van Rooij (2013). Bridging the gap between theory and Practice of Approximate Baysian Inferences: Cognitive System Research 09/2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplace: “Memoire sur les Probabilities” (1774). See discussion by E. C. Molina in “Theory of Probability, Some Comments on Laplace’s Theorie Analytique,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, ¥oi. 36; (June 1930); pp. 369-392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasky, K.B. & Cohen, M.S. (1986). “WSC’86: procd. of the 18 th . Conference on Winter simulation”; pp 440-444, ACM, Newyork, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner S. Jennifer et al (2014). Emotion and Decision Making (16 June, 2014, Draft paper).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindley, D.V. (1987). The probability approach to the treatment of uncertainty; Statistical Science, 2;(1), 3-44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lisa Zyga (2014) http://phys.org/news/2014-03-quantum-theory-cognition-memories.html

  • Manski, C. F. (1977). The structure of random utility models. Theory and decision, 8(3), 229-254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C.F. & Lerman, S.R. (1977-1988). Econometrica: Journal of the econometric Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCollum, Gin (1999). Int.Journ.Phys., 38(12),19991201,3253-3267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M.L. (1985). The society of Mind, Simon and Shuster, Old Tappan, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstaedt P. (2011). Rational reconstruction of Modern Physics, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oaksford, M. & Chatter, N. (2007). The probabilistic approach to Human reasoning”; Oxford University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan-Kaufmann, San Mateo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellionisz A. & Llinás R. (1982). Neuroscience; 7(12), 2949-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, S. & Llinás, R. (2008). Dynamic Geometry, Brain function modelling and Consciousness; Eds. R. Banerjee & B.K. Chakravorty; Progress in Brain research; 168, 133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, S. & Llinás, R. (2012). Role of Noise in Brain function; Science; Image in action; Eds. Z. Bertrand et al., World Scientific Publishers, Singapore; pp 34-44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy,S. & Llinás, R. (2012). Metric Tensor as degree of coherence in the dynamical organization of the central nervous system(CNS), Procd. Mathematics of Distances & Applications; eds. by M.M. Deja, M. Petitzen, K. Markov) (ITHEA, Sophia), pp 169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salazar R., Jara-Figueroa C., and Delgado A. (2014). Analogue of the quantum total probability rule from Paraconsistent Bayesian probability theory; arXiv:1408.5308 v 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer Glen A. (2008). A better interpretation of Probabilities and Dempster-Shafer degrees of Belief; www.glenshafer.com/p/assets/downloads/dsbetting.pdf

  • Schuster, A. (1904). An Introduction to the Theory of Optics, London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanos, A. (1999). Probability Theory and Statistical Inference, Cambridge University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. (2003): Brain and Mind:A Transdisciplinary Journal of Neuroscience and Neurophilosophy, 4(2), 151-167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y. (2005a) Brain and Mind: A Transdisciplinary Journal of Neuroscience & Neurophilosophy;4(2), 199-213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y. (2005b) In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI’05) (294-300), IEEE CS Press, Irvin, California, USA, August; ibid; (2005b); A novel decision grid theory for dynamic decision-making. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI’05), (308-314), IEEE CS Press, Irvin, California,USA, August; ibid;

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. (2007); The Int. l Journ. of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (IJCINI), 1(1), 1-271(1), Cognitive Informatics (ICCI’03) (pp. 93-97) London, UK.,73,33-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2004); IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (C); 36(2), 203-207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y. and Ruhe G. (2007). Int. Journ. of Cognitive Informatics & Natural Intelligence, 1(2), 73-85, 73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisman K. & Moss F. (1995). Nature, 373 (6509): 33–6.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sisir Roy .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer India

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Roy, S. (2016). Introduction. In: Decision Making and Modelling in Cognitive Science. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3622-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics