Humans typically brand themselves as illogical and so is their decisions, but I have a theory that could well explain our thinking process, and (perhaps) enable a breakthrough in the creation of human-like computer programmes.

Okay,I'll try to skim it down to the basic rules of the algorithm:

 

1.The human decision-making algorithm is based on aninput-process-output basis.

2.Input includes present-time data from the environment and storedmemories. Output is the decision.

3.The algorithm is divided into four parts, the first is primary,following second and third is auxillary, fourth is special.

4.First, survival. This is divided into Need to Live (Maintaining continuity) and Pride (Respect for the ability to live). They arefurther divided into "Self", "Other", and"Human".

5.Next, material. This part controls the value of each category.

6.The value of self pride is always in a equilibrium. When there is aheightening in self pride, Material will adjust to lower the pridewith the same degree. Think of it as a straight line; when there isheightening (someone praises you) a wave is formed. After the peak,the wave will proceed downwards to return to its original line, andvice versa for lowering of pride.

7.Emotional is next. It directs Material to the required categories bysingling out the ones that are needed to process a decision.

8.Last is Emotions. Emotions heighten or lower pride based on theircategories: Positive (Anger, Joy, Proud), and Negative (Frustation,Grief, Regret). Positive heightens; Negtive lowers.

9.All values are determined in numbers. A higher numeric value means higher importance.

 

There is something wrong with it but I can't pin down what it is.

Based on this theory, I predict a person is hesitant about a decision is because the values that the "Material" provides is the same and that invoking an emotion can cause the person to make an decision unhesitantly because emotions affect the value of the "category".

 

Edited November 6, 201114 yr by Mellinia

Humans typically brand themselves as illogical and so is their decisions, but I have a theory that could well explain our thinking process, and (perhaps) enable a breakthrough in the creation of human-like computer programmes.

Okay,I'll try to skim it down to the basic rules of the algorithm:

 

1.The human decision-making algorithm is based on aninput-process-output basis.

2.Input includes present-time data from the environment and storedmemories. Output is the decision.

3.The algorithm is divided into four parts, the first is primary,following second and third is auxillary, fourth is special.

4.First, survival. This is divided into Need to Live (Maintaining continuity) and Pride (Respect for the ability to live). They arefurther divided into "Self", "Other", and"Human".

5.Next, material. This part controls the value of each category.

6.The value of self pride is always in a equilibrium. When there is aheightening in self pride, Material will adjust to lower the pridewith the same degree. Think of it as a straight line; when there isheightening (someone praises you) a wave is formed. After the peak,the wave will proceed downwards to return to its original line, andvice versa for lowering of pride.

7.Emotional is next. It directs Material to the required categories bysingling out the ones that are needed to process a decision.

8.Last is Emotions. Emotions heighten or lower pride based on theircategories: Positive (Anger, Joy, Proud), and Negative (Frustation,Grief, Regret). Positive heightens; Negtive lowers.

9.All values are determined in numbers. A higher numeric value means higher importance.

 

There is something wrong with it but I can't pin down what it is.

Based on this theory, I predict a person is hesitant about a decision is because the values that the "Material" provides is the same and that invoking an emotion can cause the person to make an decision unhesitantly because emotions affect the value of the "category".

 

I will refer you to this,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem

Can the theory be feasible?

Can the theory be feasible?

When someone refers you to something you are supposed to read it before posting again.

 

I like how in section you 4 you have an "other" category, which all the categories might as well be put in as well as they have little neurological basis.

 

What you have proposed isn't a theory it is a hypothesis, theory has a specific defined meaning in science and people should get around to learning it.

Edited November 6, 201114 yr by Psycho

When someone refers you to something you are supposed to read it before posting again.

 

I like how in section you 4 you have an "other" category, which all the categories might as well be put in as well as they have little neurological basis.

 

What you have proposed isn't a theory it is a hypothesis, theory has a specific defined meaning in science and people should get around to learning it.

 

Right, I get your point. It is a hypothesis not a theory.The link he directed me to kind of says that so I need to keep improving my hypothesis and that the list of axioms I list will increase in an attempt to explain more examples of human decisions. Resistance is futile?!