Perceive this as that – Analogies, artificial perception, and category theory

  • Zippora Arzi-Gonczarowski


This paper formalizes and analyzes cognitive transitions between artificial perceptions that consist of an analogical or metaphorical transference of perception. The formalization is performed within a mathematical framework that has been used before to formalize other aspects of artificial perception and cognition. The mathematical infrastructure consists of a basic category of ‘artificial perceptions’. Each ‘perception’ consists of a set of ‘world elements’, a set of ‘connotations’, and a three valued (true, false, undefined) predicative connection between the two sets. ‘Perception morphisms’ describe structure preserving paths between perceptions. Quite a few artificial cognitive processes can be viewed and formalized as perception morphisms or as other categorical constructs. We show here how analogical transitions can be formalized in a similar way. A factorization of every analogical transition is shown to formalize metaphorical perceptions that are inspired by the analogy. It is further shown how structural aspects of ‘better’ analogies and metaphors can be captured and evaluated by the same categorical setting, as well as generalizations that emerge from analogies. The results of this study are then embedded in the existing mathematical formalization of other artificial cognitive processes within the same premises. A fallout of the rigorous unified mathematical theory is that structured analogies and metaphors share common formal aspects with other perceptually acute cognitive processes.


Metaphor Category Theory Cognitive Transition Boolean Combination Categorical Construct 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    J.F. Allen, AI growing up — the changes and opportunities, AI Magazine 19(4) (1998) 13-23.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Z. Arzi-Gonczarowski, Wisely non rational — a categorical view of emotional cognitive artificial perceptions, in: Papers from the 1998 AAAI Fall Symposium: Emotional and Intelligent — The Tangled Knot of Cognition, ed. D. Cañamero, Orlando, FL, October 1998 (AAAI Press, 1998) pp. 7-12.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Z. Arzi-Gonczarowski, Categorical tools for perceptive design: Formalizing the artificial inner eye, in: Computational Models of Creative Design IV, eds. J.S. Gero and M.L. Maher, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney, Australia (1999) pp. 321-354.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Z. Arzi-Gonczarowski and D. Lehmann, From environments to representations — a mathematical theory of artificial perceptions, Artif. Intell. 102(2) (1998) 187-247.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Z. Arzi-Gonczarowski and D. Lehmann, Introducing the mathematical category of artificial perceptions, Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 23 (3,4) (1998) 267-298.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Asperti and G. Longo, Categories, Types, and Structures (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Barr and C. Wells, Category Theory for Computing Science (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. Barwise and J. Seligman, Information Flow, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 44 (Cambridge University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    E.A. Bender, Mathematical Methods in Artificial Intelligence (IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1995).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Black, Metaphor. in: Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor, ed. M. Johnson (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1981) pp. 63-82. A reprint of an article from 1955.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Blackburn, Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    F. Borceux, A Handbook of Categorical Algebra (Cambridge University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    E. Boros, P.L. Hammer, T. Ibaraki, A. Kogan, E. Mayoraz and I. Muchnik, An implementation of logical analysis of data, Rutcor Research Report RRR 22-96, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (July 1996).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    H. Caygill, A Kant Dictionary (Blackwell Publishers, Great Britain, 1995).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Clark, Being There, Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R.L. Crole, Categories for Types (Cambridge University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M.A. Croon and F.J.R. Van de Vijver, eds., Viability of Mathematical Models in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Swets and Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse, 1994).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    E.R. Doughherty and C.R. Giardina, Mathematical Methods for Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    S. Eilenberg and S. Mac Lane, General theory of natural equivalences, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 58 (1945) 231-294.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    B. Falkenhainer, K.D. Forbus and D. Gentner, The structure-mapping engine, Artif. Intell. 41(1) (1990) 1-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    G. Fauconnier, Mappings in Thought and Language (Cambridge University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    R.M. French, The Subtlety of Sameness — A Theory and Computer Model of Analogy Making, A Bradford Book, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    M. Genesereth and N.J. Nilsson, Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence (Morgan Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1987).Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    D. Gentner, The mechanisms of analogical learning, in: Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, eds. S. Vosniadou and A. Ortony (Cambridge University Press, 1989) pp. 199-241.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    D. Gentner, Analogy in: A Companion to Cognitive Science (Blackwell, 1998) chapter II(1), pp. 107-113.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    S.M. Glynn, R. Duit and R.B. Thiele, Teaching science with analogies: A strategy for constructing knowledge, in: Learning Science in the Schools: Research Reforming Practice, eds. S.M. Glynn and R. Duit (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1995) chapter 11.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    N. Goodman, Fact, Fiction, and Forecast (Harvard University Press, 4th edition, 1983).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    S. Harnad, The symbol grounding problem, Phys. D 42 (1990) 335-346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    H. Herrlich and G.E. Strecker, Category Theory (Allyn and Bacon, 1973).Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    P.G. Hewitt, Conceptual Physics — The Highschool Physics Program (Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 2nd edition, 1992).Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    D. Hofstadter, Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies — Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought (Basic Books, 1995).Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    D. Holland and N. Quinn, eds., Cultural Models in Language and Thought (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987).Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    K.J. Holyoak and P. Thagard, Mental Leaps — Analogy in Creative Thought, A Bradford Book (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995).Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    E. Hutchins, Cognition in the Wild (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995).Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    B. Indurkhya, Metaphor and Cognition (Kluwer Academic, 1992).Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    B. Indurkhya, Metaphor as change of representation: an artificial intelligence perspective, J. Exper. Theor. Artif. Intell. 9(1) (1997) 1-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    I. Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1992). Translated by J.W. Ellington. Originally published in 1785 as “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten”.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    J. Kolodner, Case-Based Reasoning (Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, CA, 1993).Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    G. Lakoff, The death of dead metaphor, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 2(2) (1987) 143-147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    G. Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things — What Categories Reveal About the Mind (The University of Chicago Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (The University of Chicago Press, 1980).Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    F.W. Lawvere, Tools for the advancement of objective logic: Closed categories and toposes, in: The Logical Foundations of Cognition, eds. J. Macnamara and G.E. Reyes, (Oxford University Press, 1994) pp. 43-55.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    F.W. Lawvere and S.H. Schanuel, Conceptual Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    D. Leake, ed., Case Based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons, and Future Directions (AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1996).Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    J. Lukasiewicz, Many-valued systems of propositional logic (1930), in: Polish Logic, ed. S. McCall (Oxford University Press, 1967).Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    J. Lukasiewicz, On 3-valued logic (1920), in: Polish Logic, ed. S. McCall (Oxford University Press, 1967).Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    S. MacLane, Categories for the Working Mathematician (Springer-Verlag, 1972).Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    F. Magnan and G.E. Reyes, Category theory as a conceptual tool in the study of cognition, in: The Logical Foundations of Cognition, eds. J. Macnamara and G.E. Reyes (Oxford University Press, 1994) pp. 57-90.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    M. Minsky, ed., Semantic Information Processing (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1968).Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    M. Mitchell, Analogy Mapping as Perception — A Computer Model, A Bradford Book (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993).Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    D.J. Moser, Sze-chuan pepper and Coca-Cola: The translation of Gödel, Escher, Bach into Chinese, Babel 37(2) (1991) 75-95.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    B.C. Pierce, Basic Category Theory for Computer Scientists (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991).Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    D. Ross, Metaphor, Meaning and Cognition (Peter Lang, 1993).Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    A. Sloman, Architectural requirements for human-like agents, both natural and artificial (what sorts of machines can love?), in: Human Cognition and Social Agent Technology, ed. K. Dautenhahn, Advances in Consciousness Research (John Benjamins Publishing, forthcoming).Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    P. Thagard, Mind (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996).Google Scholar
  56. [56]
    S. Vosniadou and A. Ortony, eds., Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Cambridge University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  57. [57]
    R.F.C. Walters, Categories and Computer Science (Cambridge University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  58. [58]
    A.J. Wells, Turing's analysis of computation and theories of cogitive architecture, Cognitive Sci. 22(3) (1998) 269-294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zippora Arzi-Gonczarowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Typographics LtdJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations