<p>The thing that comes to mind first are the <strong><a href="http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/gestalt_principles.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gestalt principles</a></strong>. Up front -  the Gestalt theory of perception has been <strong><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology" rel="nofollow noreferrer">criticized as being a descriptive theory</a></strong>, and not providing much insight into the processes that lead to perception.</p>

<p>However, the principles do address your question, as the Gestalt theory dictates that humans <strong><a href="http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/gestalt_principles.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">visually and psychologically attempt to make order out of chaos</a></strong>, to create harmony or structure from seemingly disconnected bits of information. Much of the principles deal with figure/ground separation, but an important other aspect is <strong><a href="http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/gestalt_principles.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">similarity</a></strong>, and specifically</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Gestalt theory states that things which share visual characteristics
  such as shape, size, color, texture, or value will be seen as
  belonging together in the viewer’s mind.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The principle of <strong><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_grouping" rel="nofollow noreferrer">grouping</a></strong> <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9280.00459" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Quinn <em>et al</em>., 2002)</a> is indeed fundamental here:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The similarity principle claims that elements tend to be integrated into groups if they are similar to each other.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><sub><strong>Reference</strong><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9280.00459" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Quinn <em>et al</em>, <em>Psych Sci</em> (2002); <strong>13</strong>(4)</a></sub> </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-11T13:32:08.963Z
Thanks! That is interesting. Other than the visual aspect of it though, how does an abstraction or generalization "live" in the brain? I mean, we generalize a whole lot of things that may or may not be visual, do we not?
Ziffusion
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-11T16:17:42.763Z
@Ziffusion, the question seemed visually oriented so I took on a visual approach to your question. The Gestalt principles go beyond the visual system though.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-14T01:22:33.820Z
I appreciate you editing the question to clarify it. But do you think that one can go a bit too far with the editing? It seems to me that the question is not exactly what I asked. It almost seems like you want to bend and twist it, till it fits some version of what you want it to be! :)
Ziffusion
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-14T02:22:08.443Z
BTW I get your point about how we tend to categorize things. But that's not exactly my question. What I am asking is more about how generalizations (abstractions) are encoded in the brain. Specific things, I suppose, would be encoded simply as visual memories (or some organization thereof). But how are generalizations encoded / handled by the brain. Thanks for all your help!
Ziffusion
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-14T05:56:37.780Z
@Ziffusion please roll the edits back if they are not to your liking. However, I certainly did not intend to twist it, only clarify. I just don't understand what *a specific instance of cat* is, among other unclarities, that's all. Clear questions tend to generate the best answers.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-14T06:54:47.613Z
That's just how this thing is framed sometimes - our cognition of all the real life instances of right angled triangles (drawn on paper or whatever), with specific lengths of sides, versus our cognition of the class of right angled triangles, with no specific lengths assigned to the sides. The former we handle like we do any visual memory. But the latter is not (cannot be) represented or processed as a visual memory. But it has to be represented in the brain somehow. I was just asking what the current thinking on that was.
Ziffusion
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-14T06:56:23.140Z
I understand your question and I'm supportive of my answer above.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-10T21:28:45.833Z
2017-06-10T21:39:05.047Z
2017-06-10T21:39:05.047Z
AliceD
<p>Accroding to the excellent book <a href="https://books.google.com.cy/books?redir_esc=y&amp;id=t2jldRsNkgsC" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Big Book of Concepts</a> by Gregory Murphy, in the prototype view every category is represented by a summary of representation features, with weights for each value of each dimension (e.g. color, hair length). When a new member of the category is encountered we add weights of the present features and subtract the weights of it's features that are not parts of a category, and if above a certain threshold then it is judged to be in category. The prototype is the generalisation that you are looking for.</p>

<p>This is an extract from the book <a href="https://books.google.com.cy/books?redir_esc=y&amp;id=t2jldRsNkgsC" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Big Book of Concepts</a> by Gregory Murphy :</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/AcOtK.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/AcOtK.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-14T08:29:07.400Z
2017-06-14T08:29:07.400Z
DesignerAnalyst
<p>Perhaps you are interested in the study to analogy making. According to Wikipedia, an analogy: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[...] is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another (the target).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>An analogy is often considered between to somewhat seemingly unrelated subjects (e.g. an atom vs the solar system), sharing an abstraction, i.e. a general abstract concept. This abstraction may be similar to your "general idea of a cat", which can be specified to specific kind of breeds. </p>

<p>A quick google search resulted in the following review (<a href="http://leadserv.u-bourgogne.fr/files/publications/000273-the-computational-modeling-of-analogy-making.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">French, 2002</a>) of computational models that try to explain analogies. In short, there are symbolic models, connectionist models and hybrid models that each use different approaches. The rather unsatisfactory conclusion of the paper is:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ywaKj.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ywaKj.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<h2>References</h2>

<p>French, R. M. (2002). The computational modeling of analogy-making. Trends in cognitive Sciences, 6(5), 200-205.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-15T13:24:07.467Z
I welcome any feedback on the down vote I received. Would be very glad to improve my answer, but I would need to know how
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-14T09:58:45.983Z
2017-06-16T06:26:20.200Z
2017-06-16T06:26:20.200Z
Robin Kramer-ten Have
<p>What is the current thinking on how the brain processes generalizations? For example, the abstract idea of a right angled triangle vs specific instances of right angled triangles? Or the general idea of a cat vs specific instance of cats?</p>

<p>How does a generalization live in the brain? What's the current thinking on how it is encoded?</p>

<p>Medieval philosophers point to such abstractions (that are not material timeless "things") to argue that something itself not material and timeless must exist to "sense" them i.e. a soul. Which is hogwash. But how does one state the nature of such things in terms of human cognition? What is going on when we consider such abstractions?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-09T14:19:48.090Z
Is this section of a Wikipedia article close to what you're asking about? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Concept#/Mental_representations
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-14T02:18:25.247Z
Thanks! That's useful. Any pointers to how generalizations (and abstractions) actually live in the brain? Specific things are somewhat easier for me to understand - in the sense that they are encoded as visual memories. But how is a generalization encoded?
Ziffusion
<cognition>
How does the brain process generalizations?
Ziffusion
# How does the brain process generalizations?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-06-09)

What is the current thinking on how the brain processes generalizations? For example, the abstract idea of a right angled triangle vs specific instances of right angled triangles? Or the general idea of a cat vs specific instance of cats?

How does a generalization live in the brain? What's the current thinking on how it is encoded?

Medieval philosophers point to such abstractions (that are not material timeless "things") to argue that something itself not material and timeless must exist to "sense" them i.e. a soul. Which is hogwash. But how does one state the nature of such things in terms of human cognition? What is going on when we consider such abstractions?

**Tags:** cognition

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Is this section of a Wikipedia article close to what you're asking about? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Concept#/Mental_representations  
> **username_0**: Thanks! That's useful. Any pointers to how generalizations (and abstractions) actually live in the brain? Specific things are somewhat easier for me to understand - in the sense that they are encoded as visual memories. But how is a generalization encoded?  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-06-10. Score: 1

The thing that comes to mind first are the **[Gestalt principles](http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/gestalt_principles.htm)**. Up front - the Gestalt theory of perception has been **[criticized as being a descriptive theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology)**, and not providing much insight into the processes that lead to perception.

However, the principles do address your question, as the Gestalt theory dictates that humans **[visually and psychologically attempt to make order out of chaos](http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/gestalt_principles.htm)**, to create harmony or structure from seemingly disconnected bits of information. Much of the principles deal with figure/ground separation, but an important other aspect is **[similarity](http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/gestalt_principles.htm)**, and specifically

> Gestalt theory states that things which share visual characteristics
> such as shape, size, color, texture, or value will be seen as
> belonging together in the viewer’s mind.

The principle of **[grouping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_grouping)** [(Quinn *et al*., 2002)](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9280.00459) is indeed fundamental here:

> The similarity principle claims that elements tend to be integrated into groups if they are similar to each other.

**Reference**  
**-** [Quinn *et al*, *Psych Sci* (2002); **13**(4)](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9280.00459)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks! That is interesting. Other than the visual aspect of it though, how does an abstraction or generalization "live" in the brain? I mean, we generalize a whole lot of things that may or may not be visual, do we not?  
> **username_2**: @username_0, the question seemed visually oriented so I took on a visual approach to your question. The Gestalt principles go beyond the visual system though.  
> **username_0**: I appreciate you editing the question to clarify it. But do you think that one can go a bit too far with the editing? It seems to me that the question is not exactly what I asked. It almost seems like you want to bend and twist it, till it fits some version of what you want it to be! :)  
> **username_0**: BTW I get your point about how we tend to categorize things. But that's not exactly my question. What I am asking is more about how generalizations (abstractions) are encoded in the brain. Specific things, I suppose, would be encoded simply as visual memories (or some organization thereof). But how are generalizations encoded / handled by the brain. Thanks for all your help!  
> **username_2**: @username_0 please roll the edits back if they are not to your liking. However, I certainly did not intend to twist it, only clarify. I just don't understand what *a specific instance of cat* is, among other unclarities, that's all. Clear questions tend to generate the best answers.  
> **username_0**: That's just how this thing is framed sometimes - our cognition of all the real life instances of right angled triangles (drawn on paper or whatever), with specific lengths of sides, versus our cognition of the class of right angled triangles, with no specific lengths assigned to the sides. The former we handle like we do any visual memory. But the latter is not (cannot be) represented or processed as a visual memory. But it has to be represented in the brain somehow. I was just asking what the current thinking on that was.  
> **username_2**: I understand your question and I'm supportive of my answer above.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-06-14. Score: 1

Accroding to the excellent book [The Big Book of Concepts](https://books.google.com.cy/books?redir_esc=y&id=t2jldRsNkgsC) by Gregory Murphy, in the prototype view every category is represented by a summary of representation features, with weights for each value of each dimension (e.g. color, hair length). When a new member of the category is encountered we add weights of the present features and subtract the weights of it's features that are not parts of a category, and if above a certain threshold then it is judged to be in category. The prototype is the generalisation that you are looking for.

This is an extract from the book [The Big Book of Concepts](https://books.google.com.cy/books?redir_esc=y&id=t2jldRsNkgsC) by Gregory Murphy :

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/AcOtK.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/AcOtK.png)


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-06-14. Score: -1

Perhaps you are interested in the study to analogy making. According to Wikipedia, an analogy:

> [...] is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another (the target).

An analogy is often considered between to somewhat seemingly unrelated subjects (e.g. an atom vs the solar system), sharing an abstraction, i.e. a general abstract concept. This abstraction may be similar to your "general idea of a cat", which can be specified to specific kind of breeds.

A quick google search resulted in the following review ([French, 2002](http://leadserv.u-bourgogne.fr/files/publications/000273-the-computational-modeling-of-analogy-making.pdf)) of computational models that try to explain analogies. In short, there are symbolic models, connectionist models and hybrid models that each use different approaches. The rather unsatisfactory conclusion of the paper is:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ywaKj.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/ywaKj.png)

## References

French, R. M. (2002). The computational modeling of analogy-making. Trends in cognitive Sciences, 6(5), 200-205.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: I welcome any feedback on the down vote I received. Would be very glad to improve my answer, but I would need to know how  

---

