The simple woman I am with some simple preference for more or less as simple mags (not only here), I’d put a table in the set when reading about a logical category ‘chairs’ for both a chair and a plush armchair. I mean, just as well, as for human thinking and logic.
Armchairs might have been not as common in George Boole’s times – as simple a woman as I may think. However, having an armchair for a chair as well as a chair for an armchair is totally out of the question as for my inner logic, the phrase ‘not as common’ when compared with the phrase ‘less common’ sufficiently appeasing my fancy for inner complexity. (Boolean cognitive psychology seems to be based mostly on an ‘and’ and an ‘or’; an ‘as’ could be interesting, too).
Armchairs are definitely common enough nowadays. Therefore nope, no agreement to such a concept for thinking universal – George Boole and his followers would be about finding universal laws for thought to underlie all reasoning (please feel welcome to see ‘Is it me, or am I a primitive’ about another idea for ‘universal’ thought).
Could machine learning apply in humans? A machine might operate lexical items like labels. Then you could form a category ‘chair’ for an armchair. Human learners are not going to see armchairs as containing or inclusive of chairs, however. Artificial intelligence will not be representative of human language – even if language might seem illogical itself (please feel welcome to see ‘David Bohm and definition – the routine divorce of thought from language’).
Human thinking is not binary. Humans can and may process options, yet the nervous system forms pools of neural information already at the level of simple motor commands. Producing a simple speech sound like [o] would take a pool of neural information. The all-or-none neural processes to generate the necessary action potentials are not sufficient – an isolated action potential belongs with error to the nervous system (sure for a reason).
Further, humans do not have the tendency to operate arbitrary sets, as permitted by artificial intelligence logic. Trying to take a set like ‘a hat, a piano, the sun, and the King of Sweden’ for a natural concept (like in Feldman) would be actually trying to take human learning for idiosyncratic rote – however you’d imagine a king always wearing a hat or having hat tricks for you when the sun is shining, provided you associate a king with a trick for your logical premise.
Boole’s logic has been of much use in computer sciences. Yet, writing a computer program you are probably aware of the fact that you are writing a computer program. Humans cannot (fortunately) be programmed – please feel welcome to see ‘Language and a program’, a brief post about apples and Chinese pears.
Simplicity and feature recognition may be innocent themselves. Multiplying problems and questions could prove totally unhelpful. Human learning a language needs to be generative. George Boole spent part his life in Ireland. ‘Traneen’ could be an Irish English word for a leaf of grass. The choice of the word ‘traneen’, ‘leaf of grass’, or ‘grass leaf’ belonging with the speaker, the surface form might make no difference to the logical content. Please see ‘My Travel’.
Please feel welcome to see my poetry corner
my scribbling site
my other WordPress posts; they are listed at
or go straight for the treats