DOCSLIB.ORG

Domain Metatheories: Enabling User-Centric Planning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Domain Metatheories: Enabling User-Centric Planning Domain Metatheories: Enabling User-Centric Planning Karen L. Myers Artificial Intelligence Center SRI International 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [email protected] Abstract planning knowledge base could completely capture the sub- tleties of a particular domain, users often want to participate Substantial improvements must be made in the usabil- in the plan development process to some extent, in order to ity of AI planning technology in order for it to achieve ensure that they understand both the structure of a plan and widespread adoption. In particular, approaches are re- quired that better serve the needs of users, who gen- the process by which planning decisions were made. erally want to play a central role in the plan develop- For these reasons, the future of automated planning lies in ment process. This user-centric perspective introduces the development of user-centric planning tools that can as- new requirements for the design of planning systems. sist human decision-makers rather than replace them. These In this paper, we argue that increased usability requires tools should enable a user to understand the complexity of a new representational layer that captures metatheo- the underlying problem, as well as providing guidance in retic properties of the planning application. A domain the determination of a solution that is well-suited to their metatheory would provide an abstracted characteriza- specific needs. tion of the planning domain that highlights key seman- tic differences among planning elements. This paper The main thesis of this paper is that effective interaction presents a candidate model for a domain metatheory, between users and planning technology requires an augmen- as well as an instantiation of that model for a simple tation of standard planning models to include an explicit travel domain. In addition, it describes three capabil- domain metatheory. A standard planning domain is mod- ities for user-centric planning that are enabled by this eled in terms of three types of elements: individuals cor- model, namely user directability of planning, genera- responding to real or abstract objects in the domain, rela- tion of qualitatively different plans, and plan summa- tions that describe characteristics of the world and individual rization. world states, and operators that describe ways to achieve ob- jectives. The domain metatheory would capture high-level Introduction semantic attributes of planning elements, thus providing a rich vocabulary for describing characteristics of solutions Artificial intelligence (AI) planning technology provides and problem-solving processes. As argued in this paper, powerful tools for solving problems that require the coor- the availability of such a language would greatly facilitate dination of actions in the pursuit of specified goals. The AI a broad range of user-planner interactions. community has produced several planning systems whose Different types of metatheories may suit different pur- demonstrations on realistic problems attest to the value of poses. This paper presents a candidate model for a plan- automated planning techniques. Nevertheless, there has ning metatheory, along with an instantiation of that model been limited success in transitioning this technology to user for a simple travel domain (Mayer 1997). The paper de- communities. A major reason for the lack of technology scribes how this metatheory was used to support two critical transfer lies with the difficulty of using planning systems. user-centric planning capabilities: user directability of the AI planners have traditionally been designed to operate as planning process and the generation of qualitatively differ- “black boxes”: they take a description of a domain and a set ent plans. In addition, a proposal is put forth for using the of goals and automatically synthesize a plan for achieving metatheory in support of plan summarization. the goals. This design explicitly limits the amount of influ- ence that a user can have on the generated plans. In many domains, users are reluctant to relinquish full A Domain Metatheory control of the planning process. This reluctance stems from Overview several factors. One is a belief that human creativity and Our candidate domain metatheory is built around three main experience are essential for effective planning in complex constructs: roles, features,andmeasures. domains. Transparency is another: even in the event that a A feature designates an attribute of interest for an oper- Copyright c 2000, American Association for Artificial Intelli- ator that distinguishes it from other operators that could be gence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. applied to the same task. For example, among operators that g can be used to refine tasks of moving from location X to lo- Vacation-Scope = fOverseas National Regional cation Y, there can be some that involve travel by air, land, AFFORDABILITY: (Overseas National Regional) (Overseas National Regional) or water; each of these media could be modeled as a fea- TIME-EFFICIENCY: ture. Because there can be multiple operators that apply to g Accommodation = fHotel Motel Camp a particular task, features provide a way of abstracting from COMFORT: (Camp Motel Hotel) the details of an operator up to distinguishing attributes that AFFORDABILITY: (Hotel Motel Camp) might be of interest to users. Note that features differ from g operator preconditions in that they do not directly restrict Transport-Media = fAir Land Water use of operators by the planner. AFFORDABILITY: (Water Air Land) Related features are grouped into feature categories.For TIME-EFFICIENCY: (Water Land Air) g example, the features fAir Land Water mentioned above g define a Transport-Media category. Feature categories Land-Transport-Mode = fAuto Bus Shuttle Taxi Train Limo AFFORDABILITY: (Limo Train Auto Taxi Shuttle Bus) themselves can have interesting properties. Just as planning TIME-EFFICIENCY: (Bus Shuttle Auto Limo Taxi Train) operators reflect a hierarchical structure, features and fea- COMFORT: (Bus Shuttle Taxi Train Auto Limo) ture categories can be organized hierarchically. Certain cat- g egories may be mutually exclusive in that at most one feature Transit-Ownership = fPublic Private from the category can be assigned to any given operator; this COMFORT: (Public Private) is the case for the feature category Transit-Ownership con- AFFORDABILITY: (Private Public) g taining the elements fPublic Private . Other categories TIME-EFFICIENCY: (Public Private) may support overlapping features; for example, there may g be an operator that involves both Air and Land travel. Transit-Capacity = fSolo Shared A role corresponds to a capacity in which a domain COMFORT: (Shared Solo) AFFORDABILITY: (Solo Shared) object is to be used within an operator. Roles map to individual variables within a planning operator. For in- stance, an air transportation operator could have variables Figure 1: Feature Categories and Associated Measures from location.1 and location.2 that fill the roles of the Travel Domain Origin and Destination,aswellasavariableairline.1 that fills the role of Carrier. A comparable sea transporta- tion operator may have these same roles, although with the ranks higher than Ritz with respect to AFFORDABILITY. planning variable cruise-ship.1 for the role Carrier. We define the domain of a measure to be the set of (par- Feature categories can have associated measures.A tially) ordered values employed by the measure. For mea- measure corresponds to an ordering (possibly partial) of sures defined over feature categories, the domain is the set features within the category with respect to some desig- of features that comprise the feature category. For measures nated criteria. For example, consider the feature category defined over instances, the domain is the set of measure val- g Transit-Ownership with features fPublic Private .For ues that can be assigned to instances. the measure COMFORT, the feature Private would rank higher than Public; for the measure AFFORDABILITY,the order would be reversed. Discussion Figure 1 presents an excerpt from the metatheory for the There is no ‘correct’ formulation of a metatheory: as with travel domain that shows sample feature categories and as- the underlying planning domain, its design involves an ex- sociated measures. Each block defines a feature category, plicit modeling process. Different potential users may care with the first line listing the name of the feature category about different metatheoretic properties: for example, af- followed by its constituent features. The remaining lines de- fordability may be an issue when designing a system to be clare a measure associated with that feature category, and used for students, but not for business travelers. provide the ranking of the features for that measure and cate- gory. For simplicity, we show only measures that completely The value of the domain metatheory lies with its provi- order the features; however, partial orders are possible. sion of a semantically-grounded abstraction of the under- Just as measures can be employed to rank features (and lying planning domain that enables meaningful, high-level hence operators with those features), they can also be em- descriptions of plans and planning processes. As part of the ployed to rank instances. For measures on instances, an abstraction process, the metatheory provides semantic link- ordered set of measure values is defined. For each mea- age among different elements within a planning domain: sure, a given individual can
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Belief in Psyontology Cumstances (Ross & Schroeder, 2014; Schwitzgebel, 2015)
    Philosophers’ volume 20, no. 11 ow are full and partial belief related in psychology’s ontology? Imprint april 2020 H Credence-first philosophers think partial belief is more funda- mental. For example, Lockeans say that to believe P is just to have high credence in P. Whereas categorical-first philosophers make full beliefs fundamental instead. Having credence x in P might just amount to having a categorical belief that P’s probability is x, for example. Work in cognitive psychology supports a different view, however. In humans, beliefs come in both coarse and fine kinds, with neither BELIEF IN more fundamental than the other. Epistemologists who focus on one kind to the exclusion of the other, or who treat one as central and the other as an afterthought, risk toiling at a fiction. This conclusion is necessarily tentative. For one thing, the empir- PSYONTOLOGY ical work is nascent and ongoing, its results subject to revision. But more than that, it’s sometimes unclear what the present results tell us about the ontological and epistemological questions of interest to philosophers. Still, a prima facie case can be made. And making it is an essential step in bringing our best science to bear on what is, at least in part, an empirical question. 1. Background Jonathan Weisberg 1.1 Why Monism? Why think one kind of belief is more fundamental than the other? It’s not just that Anglophone philosophers use ‘belief’ for both kinds, so University of Toronto they must really be the same thing deep down.1 It’s rather what causes us to use ‘belief’ for both attitudes.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Overview of Core Technical Areas of AI Research Roadmap Research
    A 20-YEAR COMMUNITY ROADMAP FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH IN THE US of actions.22 Future approaches to cybersecurity and defense will benefit from the powerful capabilities provided by AI systems. This report envisions how future AI systems can aid in responses to other types of threats as well, including natural disasters. 3. Overview of Core Technical Areas of AI Research Roadmap As discussed in section 1.2 the CCC, with the support of AAAI, held three community workshops in order to catalyze discussion and generate this research Roadmap. The three workshops were: ◗ Integrated Intelligence ◗ Meaningful Interactions ◗ Self-Aware Learning The research priorities from the three areas are summarized in Figure 3 below and expanded upon in the following three sections of the report. Research Priorities Integrated Intelligence Meaningful Interaction Self-Aware Learning • Science of integrated intelligence • Collaboration • Robust and trustworthy learning • Contextualized AI • Trust and responsibility • Deeper learning for challenging tasks • Open knowledge repositories • Diversity of interaction channels • Integrating symbolic and numeric representations • Understanding human intelligence • Improving online interaction • Learning in integrated AI/robotic systems Figure 3. Research Priorities. 3.1 A Research Roadmap for Integrated Intelligence 3.1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The development of integrated intelligent systems will require major research efforts, which we group into three major areas: 1. Integration: Science of Integrated Intelligence will explore how to create intelligent systems that have much broader capabilities than today’s systems. Approaches include finding small sets of primitives out of which a broad range of capabilities can be constructed (like many of today’s cognitive architectures) and composing independently developed AI capabilities (like 22 ibid 16 many of today’s deployed intelligent systems).
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalistic Cognition: a Research Paradigm for Human-Centered Design
    Published by AU Press, Canada Journal of Research Practice Journal of Research Practice Volume 6, Issue 2, Article M12, 2010 Main Article: Naturalistic Cognition: A Research Paradigm for Human-Centered Design Peter Storkerson Human Factors Program, College of Engineering University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, USA pks@illinois edu Abstract Naturalistic thinking and knowing, the tacit, experiential, and intuitive reasoning of everyday interaction, have long been regarded as inferior to formal reason and labeled primitive, fallible, subjective, superstitious, and in some cases ineffable. But, naturalistic thinking is more rational and definable than it appears. It is also relevant to design. Inquiry into the mechanisms of naturalistic thinking and knowledge can bring its resources into focus and enable designers to create better, human-centered designs for use in real-world settings. This article makes a case for the explicit, formal study of implicit, naturalistic thinking within the fields of design. It develops a framework for defining and studying naturalistic thinking and knowledge, for integrating them into design research and practice, and for developing a more integrated, consistent theory of knowledge in design. It will (a) outline historical definitions of knowledge, attitudes toward formal and naturalistic thinking, and the difficulties presented by the co-presence of formal and naturalistic thinking in design, (b) define and contrast formal and naturalistic thinking as two distinct human cognitive systems, (c) demonstrate the importance of naturalistic cognition in formal thinking and real-world judgment, (d) demonstrate methods for researching naturalistic thinking that can be of use in design, and (e) briefly discuss the impact on design theory of admitting naturalistic thinking as valid, systematic, and knowable.
    [Show full text]
  • A Structurationist View on Knowledge and Strategic Management
    Going Beyond the Resources Given: A Structurationist View on Knowledge and Strategic Management ALBRECHT BECKER STEPHAN DUSCHEK Department of Business Administration Free University, Berlin Garystr. 21 D- 14195 Berlin, Germany Tel.: +49 30 838 54069 Fax: +49 30 838 53307 [email protected] ELISABETH BRAUNER Institute for Psychology Humboldt-University in Berlin Oranienburger Str. 18 D-10178 Berlin, Germany Tel.: +49 30 285 165 349 Fax: +49 30 285 165-329 [email protected] Paper prepared for The Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities - OKLC - Athens, Greece April 5-6, 2002 Please do not cite without permission 2 Abstract Current knowledge-based theories explain firms' competitive advantages through the use of dynamic resources. They cannot, however, explicate how knowledge-based resources are created and why they are reproducible and inimitable at the same time. We present a model of resource usage and creation, which is based on structuration theory, phenomenology and the concept of transactive knowledge systems. The recursive process of the simultaneous creation and use of knowledge-based resources is conceptualized as a process of structuration. We argue that the concept of transactive knowledge systems may account for firm-specific usages of unshared expertise as the basis for competitive advantages as well as for the inimitability of resources. 3 1 Introduction Within the resource-based view of the firm it is widely acknowledged that knowledge is the main source of competitive advantages (Conner & Prahalad, 1996; Krogh & Roos, 1996). Correspondingly, the so-called knowledge-based view of the firm is gaining more and more acceptance within the overall framework of resource-based theorizing (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Qualified Hope
    Qualified hope 2nd Huehls.indb 1 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM 2nd Huehls.indb 2 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM Q u a l i f i e d H o p e a postmodern politics of time mitchum huehls The ohio State university press Columbus 2nd Huehls.indb 3 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM Copyright © 2009 by The Ohio State University. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Huehls, Mitchum, 1976– Qualified hope : a postmodern politics of time / Mitchum Huehls. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8142-0617-1 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. American literature—20th century—History and criticism. 2. American literature—21st century—History and criticism. 3. Politics and literature—United States—History—20th century. 4. Politics and literature—United States—History—21st century. 5. Time in litera- ture. 6. Time—Political aspects. 7. Postmodernism (Literature)—United States. I. Title. PS228.P6H84 2009 810.9'3581—dc22 2008050627 This book is available in the following editions: Cloth (ISBN 978-0-8142-0617-1) CD-ROM (ISBN 978-0-8142-9184-9) Cover design by Mia Risberg Text design by Jennifer Shoffey Forsythe Type set in Adobe Minion Pro Printed by Thomson-Shore, Inc. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48–1992. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2nd Huehls.indb 4 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM for marissa 2nd Huehls.indb 5 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM 2nd Huehls.indb 6 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM C o n T e n ts acknowledgments
    [Show full text]
  • On the Relationship of Metaphysics to Transdisciplinarity 79
    Eric L. Weislogel On the Relationship of Metaphysics to Transdisciplinarity 79 On the Relationship of Metaphysics to Transdisciplinarity Eric L. Weislogel, Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA, USA, Email: [email protected] doi: 10.22545/2013/00040 his essay shows the parallels between meta- to. For who could possibly be \educated in every physics and transdisciplinarity, both in terms area"? It is no longer possible{if indeed it ever really Tof their aims and methods and in terms of were{to be a Renaissance person, engaged in the their place or role in academic institutions. It widest possible array of scientific, philosophical, and attempts to define metaphysics, addresses criticisms cultural pursuits. In our age of analysis and spe- of metaphysics, and indicates the necessary relation- cialization, one who posed as such could be seen as ship of metaphysics to transdisciplinary endeavors. no more than a dabbler. Perhaps only an Aristotle, who wrote on physics, logic, rhetoric, ethics, zoology, Keywords: metaphysics, philosophy, method, meteorology, poetics, politics, and so on, could make transdisciplinarity, hermeneutics, deconstruction. such a claim, but it seems far too late in the scientific and cultural evolution of humanity for us to expect another Aristotle to arrive on the scene. 1 Introduction But just exactly what did Aristotle mean by this insight that Terrence Irwin translates as being \ed- In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle recognizes that ucated in every area"? Did Aristotle mean by this \each person judges rightly what he knows, and is a that one would need to have developed \expertise" good judge about that; hence the good judge in a in every area, that (in today's terms) one would have given area is the person educated in that area." No to major in every subject, earn PhD's in every field, more succinct statement can be given as the basis in order to be the “unqualifiedly good judge"? And for our traditional disciplinary way of thinking, re- what does that latter phrase really signify? The searching, and educating.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemology.Pdf
    Epistemology An overview Contents 1 Main article 1 1.1 Epistemology ............................................. 1 1.1.1 Background and meaning ................................... 1 1.1.2 Knowledge .......................................... 1 1.1.3 Acquiring knowledge ..................................... 5 1.1.4 Skepticism .......................................... 7 1.1.5 See also ............................................ 7 1.1.6 References .......................................... 8 1.1.7 Works cited .......................................... 9 1.1.8 External links ......................................... 10 2 Knowledge 11 2.1 Knowledge ............................................... 11 2.1.1 Theories of knowledge .................................... 11 2.1.2 Communicating knowledge ................................. 12 2.1.3 Situated knowledge ...................................... 13 2.1.4 Partial knowledge ...................................... 13 2.1.5 Scientific knowledge ..................................... 13 2.1.6 Religious meaning of knowledge ............................... 14 2.1.7 See also ............................................ 15 2.1.8 References .......................................... 15 2.1.9 External links ......................................... 16 2.2 Belief ................................................. 16 2.2.1 Knowledge and epistemology ................................. 17 2.2.2 As a psychological phenomenon ............................... 17 2.2.3 Epistemological belief compared to religious belief
    [Show full text]
  • Metaknowledge Management in Inquiring Organizations: Towards a Knowledge Ecology Alice Kienholz, Ph.D
    Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) Americas Conference on Information Systems AMCIS 2000 Proceedings (AMCIS) 2000 Metaknowledge Management in Inquiring Organizations: Towards a Knowledge Ecology Alice Kienholz, Ph.D. Alice Kienholz Associates, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2000 Recommended Citation Kienholz, Ph.D., Alice, "Metaknowledge Management in Inquiring Organizations: Towards a Knowledge Ecology" (2000). AMCIS 2000 Proceedings. 312. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2000/312 This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in AMCIS 2000 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Metaknowledge Management in Inquiring Organizations: Towards a Knowledge Ecology Alice Kienholz, Ph.D., Alice Kienholz Associates, [email protected] Abstract those various approaches to a situation, in the most appropriate way, that is important. This is metaknowledge Metaknowledge management is the judicious or management. strategic management or leveraging of the different ways in which we come “to know,” based on Churchman’s Inquiring Organizations (1971) classic work, “The Design of Inquiring Systems” so that we respond to situations in the most appropriate Building on Churchman’s insights, Courtney, way. It differs from knowledge management in that it is Croasdell and Paradice (1998) have recast Churchman’s concerned more with how we know what we know than (1971) models of inquiring systems in the language of a with what we know per se (information and knowledge). learning organization, to form the basis for effective By helping individuals and organizations to understand learning organizations which they refer to as inquiring and be aware of their preferred ways of thinking and organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegel's Philosophy of Science in Light of the Question of Naturalism
    Metascience as Self-Knowledge: Hegel’s Philosophy of Science in Light of the Question of Naturalism von der Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften und Philosophie der Universität Leipzig genehmigte D I S S E R T A T I O N zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor der Philosophie Dr. phil. vorgelegt von M.A. Roi Bar geboren am 28.05.1978 in Aschkelon, Israel Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Neuser Tag der Verleihung: 21.07.2017 Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 6 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 7 1. IS THERE A PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE IN HEGEL’S ‘SYSTEM’? .............. 18 1.1 The formal hermeneutical problem ......................................................................... 19 1.1.1 The absence of an explicit ‘philosophy of science’ .......................................... 19 1.1.2 Two meanings of philosophy of science ........................................................... 21 1.2 The conceptual-historical problem .......................................................................... 26 1.2.1 The pseudoproblem of anachronism ................................................................. 26 1.2.2 The anti-Hegelian philosophy of science .......................................................... 29 1.3 The concrete research problem ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hierarchical Representation of Legal Knowledge with Metaprogramming in Logic
    J. LOGIC PROGRAMMING 1994:18:55-80 5.5 HIERARCHICAL REPRESENTATION OF LEGAL KNOWLEDGE WITH METAPROGRAMMING IN LOGIC JONAS BARKLUND AND ANDREAS HAMFELT D We present an application of metaprogramming in logic that, unlike most metaprogramming applications, is not primarily concerned with controlling the execution of logic programs. Metalevel computation is used to define theories from schemata that were either given explicitly or obtained by abstraction from other theories. Our main application is a representation of legal knowledge in a metalogic programming language. We argue that legal knowledge is multilayered and therefore a single level representation language lacks the needed expressiveness. We show that legal rules can be partitioned into primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, and higher level rules. Our classification enables us to define a multilevel model of legal knowledge and a one-to-one correspondence with levels of metaprogram- ming in logic. We show that this framework has a potential for capturing important legal interpretation principles such as analogia legis, lex specialis Zegigeneruli derogut, etc. We have a running example from commercial law that utilizes rules up to the tertiary level, emphasizing unulogiu legis. The example is expressed in a multilevel metalogic programming language that provides a naming convention and employs reflection between levels. a 1. INTRODUCTION Metalogic programming provides an expressive power that facilitates an intelligible representation of complex knowledge. We exploit a framework based on that proposed by Bowen and Kowalski [4, 291 for representing multilayered legal knowledge and, in particular, show how the reflection principles naturally mirror Address correspondence IO Jonas Barklund and Andreas Hamfelt, Computing Science Department, Uppsala University, Box 311, S-751 05 Uppsala, Sweden.
    [Show full text]
  • Metatheory and Reflection in Theorem Proving: a Survey and Critique
    Metatheory and Reflection in Theorem Proving: A Survey and Critique John Harrison University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory New Museums Site Pembroke Street Cambridge CB2 3QG England [email protected] 15th February 1995 Abstract One way to ensure correctness of the inference performed by computer theorem provers is to force all proofs to be done step by step in a simple, more or less traditional, deductive system. Using techniques pioneered in Edinburgh LCF, this can be made palatable. However, some believe such an approach will never be efficient enough for large, complex proofs. One alternative, commonly called reflection, is to analyze proofs using a second layer of logic, a metalogic, and so justify abbreviating or simplifying proofs, making the kinds of shortcuts humans often do or appealing to specialized decision algorithms. In this paper we contrast the fully-expansive LCF approach with the use of reflection. We put forward arguments to suggest that the inadequacy of the LCF approach has not been adequately demonstrated, and neither has the practical utility of reflection (notwithstanding its undoubted intellectual interest). The LCF system with which we are most concerned is the HOL proof assistant. The plan of the paper is as follows. We examine ways of providing user ex- tensibility for theorem provers, which naturally places the LCF and reflective approaches in opposition. A detailed introduction to LCF is provided, em- phasizing ways in which it can be made efficient. Next, we present a short in- troduction to metatheory and its usefulness, and, starting from G¨odel'sproofs and Feferman's transfinite progressions of theories, look at logical ‘reflection principles'.
    [Show full text]
  • APA Newsletters NEWSLETTER on PHILOSOPHY and COMPUTERS
    APA Newsletters NEWSLETTER ON PHILOSOPHY AND COMPUTERS Volume 07, Number 1 Fall 2007 FROM THE EDITOR, PETER BOLTUC FROM THE OUTGOING CHAIR, MARVIN CROY FROM THE INCOMING CHAIR, MICHAEL BYRON ARTICLES LUCIANO FLORIDI “Understanding Information Ethics” RICCARDO MANZOTTI “Towards Artificial Consciousness” COMMENTARIES ON HARMAN YUJIN NAGASAWA “Formulating the Explanatory Gap” MARION LEDWIG “To Understand the Understanding—das Verstehen zu Verstehen: A Discussion of Harman’s ‘Explaining an Explanatory Gap’” DISCUSSION PAPERS GAETANO A. LANZARONE “Computing and Philosophy: In Search for a New Agenda” BERTIL ROLF “Testing Tools of Reasoning: Mechanisms and Procedures” © 2007 by The American Philosophical Association BOOK REVIEW Amy White: Virtually Obscene: The Case for an Uncensored Internet REVIEWED BY MELISSA WINKEL AMY WHITE “Reponse to Melissa Winkel” NOTES CAMERON BUCKNER, MATHIAS NIEPERT, AND COLIN ALLEN “InPhO: The Indiana Philosophy Ontology” GEOFFREY KLEMPNER “The Pathways School of Philosophy” MATT BUTCHER “NA-CAP@Loyola 2007” APA NEWSLETTER ON Philosophy and Computers Piotr Bołtuć, Editor Fall 2007 Volume 07, Number 1 Manzotti’s paper also serves as an excellent link to the second FROM THE EDITOR part of the Newsletter. The next two papers comment on the keynote article from the last issue of this Newsletter, Gilbert Harman’s “Explaining an Explanatory Gap.” In his contribution, Yujin Nagasawa Piotr Bołtuć presents a critical analysis of the way Harman formulates the University of Illinois–Springfield explanatory gap. He refers to Nagel’s what it is like to be a bat example to show that the explanatory gap may emerge from The previous issue of this Newsletter, the first one I edited, one of two reasons: either we have to be bat-type creatures to was devoted to making conspicuous the fact that philosophy know what it is like to have sonar, or objective characteristics and computers is no longer a new, controversial, or unproven of a bat do not tell us what it is like to have sonar.
    [Show full text]