Abstract
There has been considerable work on practical reasoning in artificial intelligence and also in philosophy. Typically, such reasoning includes premises regarding means–end relations. A clear semantics for such relations is needed in order to evaluate proposed syllogisms. In this paper, we provide a formal semantics for means–end relations, in particular for necessary and sufficient means–end relations. Our semantics includes a non-monotonic conditional operator, so that related practical reasoning is naturally defeasible. This work is primarily an exercise in conceptual analysis, aimed at clarifying and eventually evaluating existing theories of practical reasoning (pending a similar analysis regarding desires, intentions and other relevant concepts).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bratman M. (1983). Taking plans seriously. Social Theory and Practice, 9: 271–287
Bratman M.E., Israel D.J., Pollack M.E. (1988). Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational intelligence, 4(4): 349–355
Brown M.A. (2005). Means and ends in branching time. Presented at the norms, reasoning and knowledge in technology workshop.
Castilho M., Herzig A., Varzinczak I. (Eds.) (2002). It depends on the context! A decidable logic of actions and plans based on a ternary dependence relation. 9th Intl. workshop on non-monotonic reasoning NMR’2002
Castilho M.A., Gasquet O., Herzig A. (1999). Formalizing action and change in modal logic I: the frame problem. Journal of logic and computation, 9(5).
Dignum F., Meyer J.-J. Ch., Wieringa R. (1994). Contextual permission: a solution to the free choice paradox. In A. J. Jones M. Sergot (Eds.), DEON’94, Second internation workshop on deontic logic in computer science, University of Oslo Complex series, pp 107–135
Giacomo G.D., Lenzerini M. (Eds.) (1995). PDL-based framework for reasoning about actions. In LNAI 1992. pp 103–114
Giordano L., Martelli A., Schwind C. (2000). Ramification and causality in a modal action logic. Journal of logic and computation, 10(5): 615–662
Hanks S., McDermott D. (1987). Default reasoning, nonmonotonic logics, and the frame problem. In: Ginsberg M.L. (Ed), Readings in nonmonotonic reasoning. Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, pp 390–395
Hansson S.O. (2000), Formalization in philosophy. The Bulletin of symbolic logic, 6(2): 162–175
Harel D. (1984). Dynamic logic. In: Gabbay D., Guenthner F. (Eds), Handbook of philosophical logic, Vol. II. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, pp 497–604
Horty J.F., Belnap N. (1995). The deliberative stit: a study of action, omission, ability and obligation. Journal of philosophical logic, 24: 583–644
Hughes J., Esterline A., Kimiaghalam B. (2005). Means–end semantics and a measure of efficacy. Journal of logic, language and information. Forthcoming.
McCarthy J. (1999). Concepts of logical AI. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/concepts-ai/ concepts-ai.html.
McCarthy J., Hayes P.J. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Meltzer B., Michie D. (Eds), Machine intelligence 4. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburg, pp 463–502
Meyer J.-J.C. (1989). Using programming concepts in deontic reasoning. In: Bartsch R., van Benthem J., van Emde Boas P. (Eds), Semantics and contextual expression. Riverton, Dordrecht, pp 117–145
Meyer J.-J.C. (2000). Dynamic logic for reasoning about actions and agents. In Logic-based artificial intelligence, Norwell, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 281–311
Millgram E. (2004). Practical Reasoning entry in the online Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind, (Eds.), Chris Eliasmith, http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/practicalreasoning.html.
Nute D. (1984). Conditional logic. In: Gabbay D., Guenthner F. (Eds), Handbook of philosophical logic, Vol. II. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, pp 387–439
Nute D. (1994) Defeasible logic. In: Gabbay D., Hogger C.J., Robinson J.A. (Eds), Handbook of philosophical logic, Vol. III D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, pp 353–395
Pollock J.L. (2002). The logical foundations of means–end reasoning. In: Elio R. (Ed), Common sense, reasoning and rationality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Prendinger H., Schurz G. (1996). Reasoning about action and change. a dynamic logic approach. Journal of logic, language and information, 5(2): 209–245
Schmidtz D. (1994). Choosing ends. Ethics, 104(2): 226–251
Segerberg K. (1992). Getting started: beginnings in the logic of action. Studia logica, 51: 347–378
Von Wright G.H. (1963). Practical inference. The Philosophical review, 72(2): 159–179
Zhang D., Foo N. (2002). Dealing with the ramification problem in the extended propositional dynamic logic. In: Wolter F., Wansing H., de Rijke M., Zakharyaschev M. (Eds), Advances in modal logic, Vol. 3. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 173–191
Zhang D., Foo N.Y. (2001). EPDL: a logic for causal reasoning. Proceedings of the seventeenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2001, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 4-10. pp 131–138
Zhang D., Foo N.Y. (2005). Frame problem in dynamic logic. Journal of applied non-classical logics, 15(2): 215–239
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
“They were in conversation without speaking. They didn’t need to speak. They just changed reality so that they had spoken.” Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hughes, J., Kroes, P. & Zwart, S. A Semantics for Means-end Relations. Synthese 158, 207–231 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9036-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9036-x