New fundamental evidence of non-classical structure in the combination of natural concepts

We recently performed cognitive experiments on conjunctions and negations of two concepts with the aim of investigating the combination problem of concepts. Our experiments confirmed the deviations (conceptual vagueness, underextension, overextension etc.) from the rules of classical (fuzzy) logic and probability theory observed by several scholars in concept theory, while our data were successfully modelled in a quantum-theoretic framework developed by ourselves. In this paper, we isolate a new, very stable and systematic pattern of violation of classicality that occurs in concept combinations. In addition, the strength and regularity of this non-classical effect leads us to believe that it occurs at a more fundamental level than the deviations observed up to now. It is our opinion that we have identified a deep non-classical mechanism determining not only how concepts are combined but, rather, how they are formed. We show that this effect can be faithfully modelled in a two-sector Fock space structure, and that it can be exactly explained by assuming that human thought is the superposition of two processes, a ‘logical reasoning’, guided by ‘logic’, and a ‘conceptual reasoning’, guided by ‘emergence’, and that the latter generally prevails over the former. All these findings provide new fundamental support to our quantum-theoretic approach to human cognition.

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

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

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

[4]  P. Dirac Principles of Quantum Mechanics , 1982 .

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

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

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

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

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

[10]  Sandro Sozzo,et al.  Conjunction and Negation of Natural Concepts: A Quantum-theoretic Modeling , 2014, ArXiv.

[11]  William James Some problems of philosophy , 1911 .

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

[13]  Thomas Augustin,et al.  Foundations of Probability , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

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

[15]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Quantum Models for Psychological Measurements: An Unsolved Problem , 2014, PloS one.

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

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

[18]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition and the Foundations of Human Reasoning , 2014, ArXiv.

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

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

[21]  S. Sloman The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[22]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum structure of negation and conjunction in human thought , 2015, Front. Psychol..

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

[24]  Richard M. Shiffrin,et al.  Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

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

[27]  Jonathan Evans The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  Alfréd Rényi,et al.  Foundations of Probability , 1971 .

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

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

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

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

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

[35]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The Quantum Nature of Identity in Human Thought: Bose-Einstein Statistics for Conceptual Indistinguishability , 2014, ArXiv.

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

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

[38]  Andrzej Łukasik,et al.  Quantum models of cognition and decision , 2018, Int. J. Parallel Emergent Distributed Syst..

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

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

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

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