A sense-based, process model of belief

A process-oriented model of belief is presented which permits the representation of nested propositional attitudes within first-order logic. The model (NIM, for ‘nested intensional model’) is axiomatized, sense-based (via intensions), and sanctions inferences involving nested epistemic attitudes, with different agents and different times. Because NIM is grounded upon senses, it provides a framework in which agents may reason about the beliefs of another agent while remaining neutral with respect to the syntactic forms used to express the latter agent's beliefs. Moreover, NIM provides agents with a conceptual map, interrelating the concepts of ‘knowledge’, ‘belief’, ‘truth’, and a number of cognate concepts, such as ‘infers’, ‘retracts’, and ‘questions’. The broad scope of NIM arises in part from the fact that its axioms are represented in a novel extension of first-order logic, ℐ-FOL (presented herein). ℐ-FOL simultaneously permits the representation of truth ascriptions, implicit self-reference, and arbitrarily embedded sentences within a first-order setting. Through the combined use of principles derived from Frege, Montague, and Kripke, together with context-sensitive semantic conventions, ℐ-FOL captures the logic of truth inferences, while avoiding the inconsistencies exhibited by Tarski. Applications of ℐ-FOL and NIM to interagent reasoning are described and the soundness and completeness of ℐ-FOL are established herein.

[1]  Jon Doyle,et al.  The Ins and Outs of Reason Maintenance , 1983, IJCAI.

[2]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  A Guide to the Modal Logics of Knowledge and Belief: Preliminary Draft , 1985, IJCAI.

[3]  N. Cocchiarella,et al.  Situations and Attitudes. , 1986 .

[4]  Robert F. Hadley A default-oriented theory of procedural semantics , 1989 .

[5]  Jon Doyle,et al.  A Truth Maintenance System , 1979, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  Outline of a Theory of Truth , 1975 .

[7]  Ronald J. Brachman,et al.  What's in a Concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Networks , 1977, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[8]  Andrew Haas,et al.  Possible events, actual events, and robots , 1985 .

[9]  Max J. Cresswell,et al.  Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes , 1987 .

[10]  Robert F. Hadley The many uses of ‘belief’ in AI , 1991, Minds and Machines.

[11]  Gerhard Lakemeyer Tractable Meta-Reasoning in Propositional Logics of Belief , 1987, IJCAI.

[12]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Truth and Modality for Knowledge Representation , 1990, AI Commun..

[13]  R. Turner Truth and Modality for Knowledge Representation , 1990 .

[14]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. , 1965 .

[15]  Romas Aleliunas,et al.  A New Normative Theory of Probabilistic Logic , 1990 .

[16]  Alonzo Church,et al.  Intensional isomorphism and identity of belief , 1954 .

[17]  Stuart C. Shapiro,et al.  A Model for Belief Revision , 1988, Artif. Intell..

[18]  Jacques Wainer,et al.  A syntactic approach to introspection and reasoning about the beliefs of other agents , 1991, Fundam. Informaticae.

[19]  Kurt Konolige,et al.  A Computational Theory of Belief Introspection , 1985, IJCAI.

[20]  Paul C. Gilmore,et al.  The Consistency of Partial Set Theory without Extensionality , 1974 .

[21]  G. Frege On Sense and Reference , 1948 .

[22]  Donald Perlis,et al.  Languages With Self-Reference I: Foundations , 1985, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Keith A. Coleman,et al.  On the Propositional Attitudes , 1991 .

[24]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  Models for modalities , 1975 .

[25]  Jerry R. Hobbs,et al.  Making Computational Sense of Montague's Intensional Logic , 1977, Artif. Intell..

[26]  William J. Rapaport,et al.  Logical Foundations for Belief Representation , 1986, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  Andrew R. Haas,et al.  A Syntactic Theory of Belief and Action , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[28]  J. Hintikka Knowledge and belief , 1962 .

[29]  Doris Olin On an epistemic paradox , 1987 .

[30]  David Kaplan,et al.  A paradox regained , 1960, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[31]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  An Assumption-Based TMS , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[32]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning. , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[33]  John A. Barnden,et al.  Imputations and Explications: Representational Problems in Treatments of Propositional Attitudes , 1986, Cogn. Sci..

[34]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Fusion, Propagation, and Structuring in Belief Networks , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[35]  James W. Goodwin,et al.  A Process Theory of Non-monotonic Inference , 1985, IJCAI.

[36]  Stuart C. Shapiro,et al.  Intensional Concepts in Propositional Semantic Networks , 1982, Cogn. Sci..

[37]  Donald Perlis,et al.  Languages with Self-Reference II: Knowledge, Belief, and Modality , 1988, Artif. Intell..

[38]  Robert F. Hadley Logical omniscience, semantics, and models of belief , 1988, Comput. Intell..

[39]  J. Dekleer An assumption-based TMS , 1986 .

[40]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  A Logic of Implicit and Explicit Belief , 1984, AAAI.