Advertisement

Practical Reasoning in the Deliberations of an Intelligent Autonomous Agent

  • Douglas WaltonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Cognitive and Neural Systems book series (SSCNS, volume 12)

Abstract

This chapter outlines possible future developments and prospects of computational argumentation systems on practical (means-end, goal-directed) reasoning in artificial intelligence by leading the reader through a series of simple examples, gradually leading to more complex examples. The Carneades Argumentation System is used to model the structure of the argumentation in these examples, and through this, it is shown how formal systems of deliberation dialogue need to be applied to problems posed by the more complex examples.

Keywords

Goal-based reasoning Rational deliberation Means-end reasoning Instrumental practical reasoning Value-based practical reasoning Argumentation Multi-agent reasoning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for support of this work through Insight Grant 435-2012-0104.

References

  1. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2007) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif Intell 171:855–874.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2004) PARMENIDES: facilitating democratic debate. In: Traunmuller R (ed) Electronic government. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), p 3183.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30078-6_52 Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, Walton D (2013) Distinctive features of persuasion and deliberation dialogues. Argum Comput 4(2):105–127.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2012.708670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audi R (1989) Practical reasoning. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bench-Capon TJM (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Log Comput 13:429–448.  https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/13.3.429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bratman M (1987) Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Bratman M, Israel D, Pollack M (1988) Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Comput Intell 4:349–355.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.1988.tb00284.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engel P (ed) (2000) Believing and accepting. Kluwer, Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4042-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fairclough I, Fairclough N (2012) Political discourse analysis. Routledge, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon TF (2010) The Carneades argumentation support system. In: Reed C, Tindale CW (eds) Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. College Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon TF, Karacapilidis NI (1997) The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-1997). ACM Press, New York, pp 10–18.  https://doi.org/10.1145/261618.261622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) The Carneades argumentation framework. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 195–207Google Scholar
  13. Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In: Hafner CD (ed) Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 137–146Google Scholar
  14. Gordon TF, Walton D (2011) Formal model of legal proof standards and burdens. In: van Eemeren FH et al (eds) Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 644–655Google Scholar
  15. Gordon TF, Walton D (2016) Formalizing balancing arguments. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2016). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 327–338Google Scholar
  16. Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10):875–896.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamblin CL (1971) Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37:130–155.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1971.tb00065.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lascher EL (1999) The politics of automobile insurance reform: ideas, institutions, and public policy in North America. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. McBurney P, Hitchcock D, Parsons S (2007) The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. Int J Intell Syst 22:95–132.  https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paglieri F, Castelfranchi C (2005) Arguments as belief structure. In: Hitchcock D, Farr D (eds) The uses of argument: proceedings of a conference at McMaster University. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Hamilton, pp 356–367Google Scholar
  22. Pollock JL (1995) Cognitive carpentry. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Prakken H (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum Comput 1:93–124.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19462160903564592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Searle JR (2001) Rationality in action. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Toniolo A (2013) Models of argumentation for deliberative dialogue in complex domains, Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.708.328&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  26. Tuomela R (2013) Social ontology: collective intentionality and group agents. Oxford University Press, Oxford.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199978267.001.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. von Wright GH (1963) Practical inference. Philos Rev 72:159–179.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2183102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Walton D (1990) Practical reasoning: goal-driven, knowledge-based, action-guiding argumentation. Rowman & Littlefield, SavageGoogle Scholar
  30. Walton D (1998) The new dialectic. University of Toronto Press, TorontoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walton D (2007) Evaluating practical reasoning. Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Logic and Philosophy of Science 157:197–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walton D (2015) Goal-based reasoning for argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316340554 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walton D, Toniolo A, Norman TJ (2016) Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: closure problem and change of circumstances. Argum Comput 7(2–3):155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wooldridge M (2002) An introduction to multi agent systems. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG (outside the USA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations