I think we do. We see a building we've never seen before and we know it's a building because it has certain features that we use to classify it as a building. The examples aren't scarce.
I also think a good indicator of us doing it is the use of "y" and "ish" and "sort".
As for sthlm's point 2:
>2. The software can't recognize a feather if it's never seen a feather like that. It's not a sentient being.
This is Asimo in 2009:
I feel there is an immense difference between recognizing simple sketches and deriving what an object is based on extended characteristics.
The video you linked furthers that by showing that ASIMO was using three-dimensional observation to calculate certain features and ascertain what that object was.
If you'd give these doodles to people that are not Western males it'll do a lot worse. Someone already pointed out it doesn't recognize woman's shoes.
It is unmistakable how much the difficulty level ramps up when you're paired with those of an unlike-nature to you. Sometimes that level of abstraction is taken way outside of generic context clues.
We use very generic "words" (eg egg, tree, bike, cloud, plate).
When you're using your foot to draw you really have to distill down to the essence of the item. Yes there is a deal of guessing but in some way the image (however unlike the object) has to have some element of the Platonic nature, if you will, of the object being drawn.
Fun!