Conjunction and Negation of Natural Concepts: A Quantum-theoretic Modeling

We perform two experiments with the aim to investigate the effects of negation on the combination of natural concepts. In the first experiment, we test the membership weights of a list of exemplars with respect to two concepts, e.g., {\it Fruits} and {\it Vegetables}, and their conjunction {\it Fruits And Vegetables}. In the second experiment, we test the membership weights of the same list of exemplars with respect to the same two concepts, but negating the second, e.g., {\it Fruits} and {\it Not Vegetables}, and again their conjunction {\it Fruits And Not Vegetables}. The collected data confirm existing results on conceptual combination, namely, they show dramatic deviations from the predictions of classical (fuzzy set) logic and probability theory. More precisely, they exhibit conceptual vagueness, gradeness of membership, overextension and double overextension of membership weights with respect to the given conjunctions. Then, we show that the quantum probability model in Fock space recently elaborated to model Hampton's data on concept conjunction (Hampton, 1988a) and disjunction (Hampton, 1988b) faithfully accords with the collected data. Our quantum-theoretic modeling enables to describe these non-classical effects in terms of genuine quantum effects, namely `contextuality', `superposition', `interference' and `emergence'. The obtained results confirm and strenghten the analysis in Aerts (2009a) and Sozzo (2014) on the identification of quantum aspects in experiments on conceptual vagueness. Our results can be inserted within the general research on the identification of quantum structures in cognitive and decision processes.

[1]  J. Fodor,et al.  Concepts: a potboiler , 1994, Cognition.

[2]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Quantum aspects of semantic analysis and symbolic artificial intelligence , 2003, quant-ph/0309022.

[3]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The Violation of Bell Inequalities in the Macroworld , 2000, quant-ph/0007044.

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

[5]  Sam Alxatib,et al.  On the Psychology of Truth-Gaps , 2009, ViC.

[6]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A theory of concepts and their combinations I: The structure of the sets of contexts and properties , 2005 .

[7]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  On typicality and vagueness , 1997, Cognition.

[8]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition: Why and How Concepts Are Entangled , 2011, QI.

[9]  Daniel N. Osherson,et al.  On the psychology of vague predicates , 1999 .

[10]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition , 2008, 0805.3850.

[11]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A Theory of Concepts and Their Combinations II: A Hilbert Space Representation , 2004 .

[12]  L. Komatsu Recent views of conceptual structure , 1992 .

[13]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Identifying Quantum Structures in the Ellsberg Paradox , 2013, International Journal of Theoretical Physics.

[14]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision , 2012 .

[15]  Harald Atmanspacher,et al.  The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models of Cognition , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Jerome R Busemeyer,et al.  Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[17]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum structure and human thought. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[18]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Particles as Conceptual Entities: A Possible Explanatory Framework for Quantum Theory , 2009, 1004.2530.

[19]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts , 1981, Cognition.

[20]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Concepts and Their Dynamics: A Quantum-Theoretic Modeling of Human Thought , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[21]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[22]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Representation in Memory. , 1983 .

[23]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge , 1974 .

[24]  Harald Atmanspacher,et al.  The Potential of Quantum Probability for Modeling Cognitive Processes , 2011, CogSci.

[25]  A. Messiah Quantum Mechanics , 1961 .

[26]  R. Nosofsky Exemplar-Based Accounts of Relations Between Classification, Recognition, and Typicality , 1988 .

[27]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Ubiquitous Quantum Structure , 2010 .

[28]  R. Nosofsky Exemplars, prototypes, and similarity rules. , 1992 .

[29]  J. Hampton,et al.  Disjunction of natural concepts , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[30]  C. J. van Rijsbergen,et al.  The geometry of information retrieval , 2004 .

[31]  J. Hampton Overextension of Conjunctive Concepts: Evidence for a Unitary Model of Concept Typicality and Class Inclusion , 1988 .

[32]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[33]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

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

[35]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Gradedness and conceptual combination , 1982, Cognition.

[36]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge" in the psychology of computer vision , 1975 .

[37]  H. Kamp,et al.  Prototype theory and compositionality , 1995, Cognition.

[38]  Dirk Aerts,et al.  A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics , 1986 .

[39]  A. Khrennikov,et al.  Quantum Social Science , 2013 .

[40]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Entanglement in Concept Combinations , 2013, ArXiv.

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

[42]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Foundations of Quantum Physics: A General Realistic and Operational Approach , 2001, quant-ph/0105109.

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

[44]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  The Current Status of Research on Concept Combination , 1995 .

[45]  I. Pitowsky Quantum Probability ― Quantum Logic , 1989 .

[46]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Applications of Quantum Statistics in Psychological Studies of Decision Processes , 1995 .

[47]  Jennifer S Trueblood,et al.  A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. , 2011, Psychological review.

[48]  Sandro Sozzo,et al.  A Quantum Probability Explanation in Fock Space for Borderline Contradictions , 2013, 1311.6050.

[49]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  From Learning Theory to Connectionist Theory : Essays in Honor of William K. Estes, Volume I; From Learning Processes to Cognitive Processes, Volume II , 2013 .

[50]  J. Hampton,et al.  Conceptual combination: Conjunction and negation of natural concepts , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[51]  J. Linnett,et al.  Quantum mechanics , 1975, Nature.

[52]  Y. Hochberg A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance , 1988 .

[53]  Mark J. Machina,et al.  Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms , 2009 .

[54]  Emmanuel M. Pothos,et al.  A Quantum Probability Perspective on Borderline Vagueness , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[55]  L. A. Zadeh,et al.  A note on prototype theory and fuzzy sets , 1982, Cognition.