Abstract
As many philosophers agree, the frame problem is concerned with how an agent may efficiently filter out irrelevant information in the process of problem-solving. Hence, how to solve this problem hinges on how to properly handle semantic relevance in cognitive modeling, which is an area of cognitive science that deals with simulating human’s cognitive processes in a computerized model. By “semantic relevance”, we mean certain inferential relations among acquired beliefs which may facilitate information retrieval and practical reasoning under certain epistemic constraints, e.g., the insufficiency of knowledge, the limitation of time budget, etc. However, traditional approaches to relevance—as for example, relevance logic, the Bayesian approach, as well as Description Logic—have failed to do justice to the foregoing constraints, and in this sense, they are not proper tools for solving the frame problem/relevance problem. As we will argue in this paper, Non-Axiomatic Reasoning System (NARS) can handle the frame problem in a more proper manner, because the resulting solution seriously takes epistemic constraints on cognition as a fundamental theoretical principle.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Audi R. (1994) Dispositional beliefs and dispositions to believe. Noûs 28: 419–434
Baader, F. (eds) et al (2007) The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Brachman R. (1977) What’s in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic networks. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 9: 127–152
Dennett D. (1987) Cognitive wheels: the frame problem of AI. In: Pylyshyn Z.W. (Ed.), The robots dilemma. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp 41–64
Devlin K. (1991) Logic and information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dreyfus H.L., Dreyfus S.E. (1987) How to stop worrying about the frame problem even though it’s computationally insoluble. In: Pylyshyn Z.W. (Ed.), The robot’s dilemma. Ablex, Norwood, pp 95–112
Dunn J. M. (1986) Relevance logic and entailment. In: Guenthner F., Gabbay D. (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 3). Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 117–124
Fitelson B. (2006) The paradox of confirmation. Philosophy Compass 1: 95–113
Fodor J. (1983) The modularity of mind: An essay in faculty psychology. The MIT Press, London
Fodor J. (1987) Modules, frames, fridgeons, sleeping dogs, and the music of the spheres. In: Pylyshyn Z.W. (Ed.), The robots dilemma. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp 139–149
Fodor J. (2000) The mind doesn’t work that way—the scope and limits of computational psychology. The MIT press, London
Glymour C. (1987) Android epistemology and the frame problem: Comments on Dennett’s “cognitive wheels”. In: Pylyshyn Z.W. (Ed.), The robots dilemma. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp 65–76
Glymour, C., Cooper, G. (eds) (1999) Computation, causation, discovery. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA
Goertzel, B., Pennachin, C. (eds) (2007) Artificial general intelligence. Springer, Berlin
Good J. (1960) Paradox of confirmation. The British Journal of Philosophy of Science 42: 145–149
Hanks S., McDermott D. (1987) Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence 33: 379–412
Haugeland J. (1981) The nature and the plausibility of cognitivism. Behaviorist and Brain Sciences I: 215–266
Haugeland J. (1987) An overview of the frame problem. In: Pylyshyn Z.W. (Ed.), The robots dilemma. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp 77–94
Heinsohn J. et al (1994) An empirical analysis of terminological representation systems. Artificial Intelligence 68: 367–397
Hempel C. (1945) Studies in the logic of confirmation. Mind 54: 1–26
Jaeger, M. (1994). Probabilistic reasoning in terminological logics. In Pietro et al. (Eds.), Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’ 94) (pp. 305–316).
Küsters R. (2001) Non-standard inferences in description logics. Springer, Berlin
Lawson T. (1985) The context of prediction (and the paradox of confirmation). British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36: 393–407
Lormand E. (1990) Framing the frame problem. Synthese 82: 353–374
Mares E. (1997) Relevant logic and the theory of information. Synthese 109: 345–360
Mares E. (2004) Relevant logic: A philosophical interpretation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Mares, E. (2006). Relevance logic. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/#Sem.
Mackie J. L. (1969) The relevance criterion of confirmation. British Journal of Philosophy of Science 20: 27–40
Margolis, E., Laurence, S. (eds) (1999) Concepts: Core readings. The MIT Press. Cambridge MA
Minsky M. (1981) A Framework for representing knowledge. In: Haugeland J. (Ed.), Mind sesign. Bradford Press, Montgomery, pp 95–128
McCarthy J., Hayes P. J. (1969) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence 4: 463–502
Pearl J. (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo
Pearl J. (2009) Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York
Quillian R. (1967) Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic capacities. Behavioral Science 12: 410–430
Quine W. V. A. (1951) Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review 60: 20–43
Quine, W. V. A. (1969) Natural kinds. In Ontological relativity and other essays (pp. 114–138). New York: Columbia University Press)
Reiter, R., & Criscuolo, G. (1981). On interacting defaults. In Proceedings of the seventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 270–276).
Restall G. (1996) Information flow and relevant logics. In: Seligman J., Westerstahl D. (eds) Logic, language and computation (Vol. 1). CSLI, Stanford, pp 463–478
Shanahan M. (1997) Solving the frame problem. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Shanahan, M. (2009). The frame problem. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frame-problem/.
Smith B. C. (1999) Computation. In: Wilson R. A., Keil F. C. (eds) The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive science. MIT press, London, pp 153–155
Spirters, P. et al (eds) (2000) Causation, prediction, and search (2nd ed.). The MIT Press, Cambridge MA
Straccia U. (2001) Reasoning within fuzzy description logics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 14: 137–166
Talbott, W. (2008). Bayesian epistemology. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/.
Touretzky D. (1986) The mathematics of inheritance systems. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos
Wang P. (1994) From inheritance relation to non-axiomatic logic. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 11: 281–319
Wang P. (1996) Heuristics and normative models. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 14: 221–235
Wang P. (2001) Confidence as higher-order uncertainty. In: De Cooman G. (Ed.), The second international symposium on imprecise probabilities and their applications. New York, Ithaca, pp 352–361
Wang P. (2004a) The limitation of Bayesianism. Artificial Intelligence 158: 97–106
Wang, P. (2004b). The generation and evaluation of generic sentences. Philosophical Trends (Supplement 2004), 35–44.
Wang P. (2006) Rigid flexibility: The logic of intelligence. Springer, Dordrecht
Wang P. (2007) Three fundamental misconceptions of artificial intelligence. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 19: 249–268
Wang P. (2009a) Formalization of evidence: A comparative study. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence 1: 25–53
Wang P. (2009b) Analogy in a general-purpose reasoning system. Cognitive Systems Research 10: 286–296
Yen, J. et al. (1991). Generalizing term subsumption language to fuzzy logic. In R. Reiter et al. (Eds.), Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAU’ 91) (pp. 472–477).
Young M. (2011) Relevance and relationalism. Metaphysica 12: 19–30
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, Y., Wang, P. The frame problem, the relevance problem, and a package solution to both. Synthese 187 (Suppl 1), 43–72 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0117-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0117-8