Neural network performance has made great strides in recent years by incorporating key assumptions, often referred to as inductive biases, about data domains into specialized model structures. The designs of popular neural network architectures such as recurrent neural networks, convolutional neural networks, graph neural networks, and transformers all incorporate aspects of their respective task-specific domains into the operations, weight sharing, and connections of their underlying network structure [1, 3, 4, 9, 12]. That specialization, has, in turn, yielded improved efficiency and performance over the more general, fully connected design. Note, however, when implemented, these neural networks tend to be treated as entirely separate architectures, with no explicit connections between them, despite their similar underlying assumptions. Not only does this practice obscures some of the core theoretical similarities between these models, but it can also make modifying the architecture cumbersome when any of those original assumptions about the task domain change even slightly. There exist several well-established methods for describing and reasoning from logical knowledge bases that could trivially describe both the assumptions made on a task's domain and the graphical structure of the neural network itself. Nonetheless, simply using deterministic logic on its own to define that structure, through any given logical programming language, does not immediately align with the constrained structure of the neural network and the uncertainty present in said network's predictions.