Simulative reasoning, common-sense psychology and artificial intelligence

In Martin Davies & Tony Stone (eds.), Mental Simulation: Evaluations and Applications. Blackwell. pp. 247--273 (1995)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The notion of Simulative Reasoning in the study of propositional attitudes within Artificial Intelligence (AI) is strongly related to the Simulation Theory of mental ascription in Philosophy. Roughly speaking, when an AI system engages in Simulative Reasoning about a target agent, it reasons with that agent’s beliefs as temporary hypotheses of its own, thereby coming to conclusions about what the agent might conclude or might have concluded. The contrast is with non-simulative meta-reasoning, where the AI system reasons within a detailed theory about the agent’s (conjectured) reasoning acts. The motive within AI for preferring Simulative Reasoning is that it is more convenient and efficient, because of a simplification of the representations and reasoning processes. The chapter discusses this advantage in detail. It also sketches the use of Simulative Reasoning in an AI natural language processing system, ATT-Meta, that is currently being implemented. This system is directed at the understanding of propositional attitude reports. In ATT-Meta, Simulative Reasoning is yoked to a somewhat independent set of ideas about how attitude reports should be treated. Central here are the claims that (a) speakers often employ commonsense (and largely metaphorical) models of mind in describing agents’ attitudes, (b) the listener accordingly needs often to reason within the terms of such models, rather than on the basis of any objectively justifiable characterization of the mind, and (c) the commonsense models filter the suggestions that Simulative Reasoning comes up with concerning target agents’ reasoning conclusions. There is a yet tighter connection between the commonsense models and the Simulative Reasoning. It turns out that Simulative Reasoning can be rationally reconstructed in terms of a more general type of reasoning about the possibly-counterfactual “world” that the target agent believes in, together with an assumption that that agent has a faithful representation of the world. In the ATT-Meta approach, the reasoner adopts that assumption when it views the target agent through a particular commonsense model (called IDEAS-AS-MODELS).

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Naive physics.Barry Smith & Roberto Casati - 1994 - Philosophical Psychology 7 (2):227 – 247.
A Wittgensteinian view of artificial intelligence.Otto Neumaier - 1987 - In Rainer P. Born (ed.), Artificial Intelligence. St Martin's Press. pp. 132--174.
Common sense, reasoning, & rationality.Renée Elio (ed.) - 2002 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Artificial Intelligence, Psychology, and the Philosophy of Discovery.Paul Thagard - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:166 - 175.
Causation in AI and law.Jos Lehmann, Joost Breuker & Bob Brouwer - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):279-315.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-28

Downloads
128 (#137,536)

6 months
69 (#61,336)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John A Barnden
University of Birmingham

Citations of this work

Consciousness and Common Sense: Metaphors of Mind.John A. Barnden - 1997 - In Sean O. Nuallain, Paul Mc Kevitt & Eoghan Mac Aogain (eds.), Two Sciences of Mind. John Benjamins. pp. 311-340.
Uncertain reasoning about agents' beliefs and reasoning.John A. Barnden - 2001 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (2-3):115-152.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Metaphors we live by.George Lakoff & Mark Johnson - 1980 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Mark Johnson.
Modal Logic: An Introduction.Brian F. Chellas - 1980 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Metaphors We Live By.George Lakoff & Mark Johnson - 1980 - Ethics 93 (3):619-621.

View all 15 references / Add more references