Quantum Zeno features of bistable perception

Abstract

A generalized quantum theoretical framework, not restricted to the validity domain of standard quantum physics, is used to model the dynamics of the bistable perception of ambiguous visual stimuli such as the Necker cube. The central idea is to treat the perception process in terms of the evolution of an unstable two-state system. This gives rise to a "Necker-Zeno" effect, in analogy to the quantum Zeno effect. A quantitative relation between the involved time scales is theoretically derived. This relation is found to be satisfied by empirically obtained cognitive time scales relevant for bistable perception.

A nonlinear dynamics model for simulating long range correlations of cognitive bistability

“…In particular, three different time scales of 30-40 ms (feedback delay), 150-200 ms (onset of conscious perception), and 1-3 s (percept duration) of the present model are in agreement with those of the Atmanspacher model. However, in contrast to Atmanspacher et al (2004) and in agreement with Haken (1989, 1995), the present model utilizes explicit perception-attention coupling. Like in Haken (1989, 1995), a perception bias balances the preference between alternative percepts, which in turn is adaptively coupled with the perception state for generating a memory and learning function.…”

“…The mapping function also shows some similarity to the perception state equation of Atmanspacher et al (2004) which was derived by means of a so-called weak quantum mechanical approach. In particular, three different time scales of 30-40 ms (feedback delay), 150-200 ms (onset of conscious perception), and 1-3 s (percept duration) of the present model are in agreement with those of the Atmanspacher model.…”

A quantum geometric model of similarity.

“…A superposition state vector cannot be said to possess a specific value for any of these possible outcomes and possible outcomes may interfere with each other, as the state vector develops in time. These features of quantum theory have enabled probabilistic models for situations which have been puzzling from a classical perspective (Aerts, 2009;Atmanspacher et al, 2004;Blutner, 2008;Bruza, 2010;Busemeyer & Bruza, 2012;Khrennikov, 2004;Yukalov & Sornette, 2010). A general difference between quantum and classical theories is that the latter require that there is always a complete joint probability distribution for all the questions relevant for a system (this is the principle of unicity; Griffiths, 2003).…”

“…Applications of QP theory have been presented in decision making (Blutner et al, in press;Busemeyer, Wang, & Townsend, 2006;Bordley, 1998;Lambert-Mogiliansky, Zamir, & Zwirn, 2009;Pothos & Busemeyer, 2009;Wang & Busemeyer, in press;Yukalov & Sornette, 2010), conceptual combination (Aerts, 2009;Aerts & Gabora, 2005;Blutner, 2008;Bruza et al, under review), memory (Bruza, 2010;, and perception (Atmanspacher, Filk, & Romer, 2004). Psychological models based on quantum probability seem to work well (for overviews see Busemeyer & Bruza, 2009;Khrennikov, 2004;Pothos & Busemeyer, in press) and add to the increasing realization that the application of QP need not be restricted to physics.…”

Downward causation without foundations

“…About (ii), it is now increasingly recognized (Lambert et al 2006;La Mura 2005;Atmanspacher et al 2004) that certain domains of human sciences (economy, psychology of perception, rational choice theory, etc.) share exactly the same (and not just analogous) characteristics and backbone structure as quantum mechanics.…”