Minds and Machines

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 163–203 | Cite as

Belief representation in a deductivist type-free doxastic logic

  • Francesco Orilia
General Articles


Konolige's technical notion of belief based on deduction structures is briefly reviewed and its usefulness for the design of artificial agents with limited representational and deductive capacities is pointed out. The design of artificial agents with more sophisticated representational and deductive capacities is then taken into account. Extended representational capacities require in the first place a solution to the intensional context problems. As an alternative to Konolige's modal first-order language, an approach based on type-free property theory is proposed. It considers often neglected issues, such as the need for a more general account of thede dicto-de re distinction, and quasi-indicators. Extended deductive capacities require a subdivision of Konolige's notion of belief into two distinct technical notions,potential anddispositional belief. The former has to do with what an artificial agent could in principle come to actively believe, given enough time and its specific logical competence; the latter with what an agent can be assumed to believe with respect to a specific goal to be fulfilled.

Key words

Artificial agent belief doxastic logic intensional logic logical omniscience multiagent domain semantic representation type-free property theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barnden, J. A. (1986), ‘Imputations and Explications: Representational Problems in Treatments of Propositional Attitudes’,Cognitive Science 10, 319–64.Google Scholar
  2. Bealer, G. (1982),Quality and Concept, London, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Belnap, N. and Gupta, A. (forthcoming),The Revision Theory of Truth.Google Scholar
  4. Boden, M. (1980)Jean Piaget, Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  5. Boër, S. E. and Lycan, W. J. (1986),Knowing who, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Castañeda, H.-N., (1967), ‘Indicators and Quasi-Indicators’,American Philosophical Quarterly 4, 85–100.Google Scholar
  7. Castañeda, H.-N. (1974), ‘Thinking and The Structure of the World’,Philosophia 4, 3–40.Google Scholar
  8. Castañeda, H.-N. (1975),Thinking and Doing: The Philosophical Foundations of Institutions, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. Castañeda, H.-N. (1977a), ‘Ontology and Grammar: I. Russell's Paradox and the General Theory of Properties in Natural Language’,Theoria 42, 44–92.Google Scholar
  10. Castañeda, H.-N. (1977b), ‘Perception, Belief, and The Structure of Physical Objects and Consciousness’,Syntheses 35, 285–351.Google Scholar
  11. Castañeda, H.-N., (1979), ‘On the Philosophical Foundations of the Theory of Communications’, in French et al. (1979), pp. 125–46.Google Scholar
  12. Castañeda, H.-N., (1980a),On Philosophical Method., Bloomington, IN: No201-1s Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Castañeda, H.-N. (1980b), ‘Reference, Reality and Perceptual Fields’,Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 53, 763–823.Google Scholar
  14. Castañeda, H.-N. (1980c), ‘The Theory of Questions, Epistemic, Powers, and the Indexical Theory of Knowledge’, in French P. A., Uehling, T. E. Jr., and Wettstein, H. W. (eds.),Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5, 193–237.Google Scholar
  15. Castañeda, H.-N., (1985/86), ‘Objects, Existence, and Reference’,Grazer Philosophische Studien 25/26, 3–59.Google Scholar
  16. Castañeda, H.-N., (1990), ‘The Semantics and Causal Roles of Proper Names in Our Thinking of Particulars: The Restricted-Variable/Retrieval View of Proper Names’, in K. Jacobi and H. Pape (eds.),Thinking and the Structure of the World, Berlin: de Gruyter, 11–56.Google Scholar
  17. Chierchia, G. and Turner R. (1988), ‘Semantics and Property Theory’,Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 261–302.Google Scholar
  18. Church, A. (1951), ‘A Formulation of the Logic of Sense and Denotation’, in P. Heule et al. (eds.)Structure, Method and Meaning: Essays in Honor of H. M. Scheffer, New York, NY: The Liberal Art Press.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, A. (1989),Microcognition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cocchiarella, N. (1982), ‘Meinong Reconstructed Versus Early Russell Reconstructed’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 11, 183–214.Google Scholar
  21. Cocchiarella, N. (1986), ‘Frege, Russell, and Logicism: a Logical Reconstruction’, in L. Haaparanta and J. Hintikka (eds.),Frege Synthesized, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  22. Cocchiarella, N. (1989) ‘Conceptualism, Realism, and Intensional Logic’,Topoi 8, 15–34.Google Scholar
  23. Creswell, H. (1985),Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Frege, G. (1980), ‘On Sense and Meaning’, in P. Geach and M. Black (eds.),Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield, (3rd ed.). Originally published in 1892.Google Scholar
  25. Fagin, R. and Halpern J. Y. (1988), ‘Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning’,Artificial Intelligence 34, 39–76.Google Scholar
  26. French P. A., Uehling, T. E. Jr., and Wettstein, H. W. (1979) (eds.)Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  27. Geach, P. T. (1967), ‘Intentional Identity’,The Journal of Philosophy 20, 627–632.Google Scholar
  28. Gupta, A. (1987), ‘The Meaning of Truth’, in E. Lepore (ed.),New Directions in Semantics, London, England: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Haas, A. R. (1990), ‘Sentential Semantics for Propositional Attitudes’,Computational Linguistics 16, pp. 213–233.Google Scholar
  30. Hadley, R. F. (1991a), ‘The Many Uses of ‘Belief’ in AI’,Minds and Machine 1, pp. 55–73.Google Scholar
  31. Hadley, R. F. (1991b), ‘A Sense-Based, Process Model of Belief’,Minds and Machines 1, pp. 279–320.Google Scholar
  32. Herzberger, H. (1982), ‘Notes on naive semantics’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 11, pp. 61–102.Google Scholar
  33. Hewitt, C. (1972),Description and Theoretical Analysis (using Schemata) of PLANNER: A language for Proving Theorems and Manipulating Models in a Robot. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Hintikka, J. (1962),Knowledge and Belief, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hobbs, J. R. (1985), ‘Ontological Promiscuity’,Proceedings of the twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 61–69.Google Scholar
  36. Konolige, K. (1986),A Deduction Model of Belief, London, England: Pitman.Google Scholar
  37. Kripke, S. (1963), ‘Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic’,Acta Philosophica Fennica 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
  38. Kripke, S. (1980),Naming and Necessity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Jubien, M. (1988), ‘Problems with Possible Worlds’, in D. F. Austin (ed.),Philosophical Analysis, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 299–322.Google Scholar
  40. Landini, G. (1990) ‘How to Russell another Meinongian: A Russellian Theory of Fictional Objects Versus Zalta's Theory of Abstract Objects’,Grazer Philosophische Studien 37, 93–122.Google Scholar
  41. Levesque, H. (1984), ‘A Logic of Implicit and Explicit Belief’,Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Austin, TX, pp. 198–202.Google Scholar
  42. Lewis, D. (1970), ‘General Semantics’,Synthese 22, 18–67.Google Scholar
  43. Lycan, W. G. (1979), ‘The Troubles with Possible Worlds’, in J. Loux (ed.),The Possible and the Actual, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 274–316.Google Scholar
  44. Meinong, A. (1960). ‘The Theory of Objects’, in R. Chisolm (ed.)Realism and The Background of Phenomenology, Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview 1960. Originally published in 1904.Google Scholar
  45. Menzel, C. (1986), ‘A Complete Type-Free ‘Second-Order’ Logic and its Philosophical Foundations’, Technical report #CSLI-86-40, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  46. Montague, R. (1974),Formal Philosophy (R. Thomason, ed.), New Haven CN: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Montague, R. (1974a), ‘Universal Grammar’, in Montague (1974), pp. 222–46.Google Scholar
  48. Montague, R. (1974b), ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in Montague (1974), 246–70.Google Scholar
  49. Montague, R., (1974c), ‘Syntactical Treatments of Modality, with corollaries on Reflection Principle and Finite Axiomatizability’, in Montague (1974), 286–302.Google Scholar
  50. Orilia, F. (1986),Natural Language Semantics and Guise Theory, Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  51. Orilia, F. (1989), ‘Identity Across frames’,Topoi Supplement 4, pp. 85–97.Google Scholar
  52. Orilia, F. (1991a), ‘Guise Theory’, in H. Burkhardt and B. Smith (eds),Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology, Munich, Germany: Philosophia Verlag, pp. 338–41.Google Scholar
  53. Orilia, F. (1991b), ‘Type-Free Property Theory, Exemplification, and Russell's Paradox’,Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 32, 442–47.Google Scholar
  54. Parsons, T. (1980),Nonexistent Objects, New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Partee, B. (1979) ‘Montague Grammar, Mental Representations and Reality’, in French et al., 195–208.Google Scholar
  56. Powers, L. H. (1978), ‘Knowledge by Deduction’,The Philosophical Review 87, 337–71.Google Scholar
  57. Rapaport, W. (1976)Intentionality and the Structure of Existence, Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  58. Rapaport, W. (1986), ‘Logical Foundations for Belief Representation’,Cognitive Science 10, 371–422.Google Scholar
  59. Russell, B. (1905), ‘On Denoting’,Mind 14, 479–493.Google Scholar
  60. Shapiro S. & Rapaport W. (1987), ‘SNePS considered as a Fully Intesional Propositional Semantic Network’, pp. 262–315 of N. Cercone and G. McCalla (eds.),The Knowledge Frontier — Essays in the Representation of Knowledge, Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  61. Strawson, P. F. (1950), ‘On Referring’,Mind 59, 320–44.Google Scholar
  62. Thomason, R. (1980), ‘A Note on Syntactical Treatments of Modality’,Synthese 44, 391–395.Google Scholar
  63. Turner, R. (1987), ‘A Theory of Properties’,Journal of Symbolic Logic 52, 455–472.Google Scholar
  64. Zalta, E. (1983),Abstract Objects, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Orilia
    • 1
  1. 1.Olivetti Multimedia LaboratoryPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations