Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Minds and Machines 1/2017

09.03.2017

The Strength of Desires: A Logical Approach

verfasst von: Didier Dubois, Emiliano Lorini, Henri Prade

Erschienen in: Minds and Machines | Ausgabe 1/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to propose a formal approach to reasoning about desires, understood as logical propositions which we would be pleased to make true, also acknowledging the fact that desire is a matter of degree. It is first shown that, at the static level, desires should satisfy certain principles that differ from those to which beliefs obey. In this sense, from a static perspective, the logic of desires is different from the logic of beliefs. While the accumulation of beliefs tend to reduce the remaining possible worlds they point at, the accumulation of desires tends to increase the set of states of affairs tentatively considered as satisfactory. Indeed beliefs are expected to be closed under conjunctions, while, in the positive view of desires developed here, one can argue that endorsing \(\varphi \vee \psi\) as a desire means to desire \(\varphi\) and to desire \(\psi\). However, desiring \(\varphi\) and \(\lnot \varphi\) at the same time is not usually regarded as rational, since it does not make much sense to desire one thing and its contrary at the same time. Thus when a new desire is added to the set of desires of an agent, a revision process may be necessary. Just as belief revision relies on an epistemic entrenchment relation, desire revision is based on a hedonic entrenchment relation satisfying other properties, due to the different natures of belief and desire. While epistemic entrenchment relations are known to be qualitative necessity relations (in the sense of possibility theory), hedonic relations obeying a set of reasonable postulates correspond to another set-function in possibility theory, called guaranteed possibility, that drive well-behaved desire revision operations. Then the general framework of possibilistic logic provides a syntactic setting for encoding desire change. The paper also insists that desires should be carefully distinguished from goals.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
According to Dretske (1988), desire is also a necessary condition for reward. In particular, desire determines what counts as a reward for an agent. For example, a person can be rewarded with water only if she is thirsty and she desires to drink.
 
2
This is an example where the logical disjunction symbol \(\vee\) should be read “and”, in natural language, as it translates into a set union, because the interpretations of \(\varphi\) understood as a desire are not mutually exclusive, contrary to when \(\varphi\) represents a belief. In the case where \(\varphi\) is a belief, the models of \(\varphi\) are mutually exclusive as candidates to be the real state of the world. So this set is a disjunction of situations, while if \(\varphi\) is a desire, any model of \(\varphi\) is a desirable situation, and the set of models of \(\varphi\) now collects all desirable situations, thus making the set of models a conjunction of situations. See Dubois and Prade (2012) and Zadeh (1978) for the importance of the distinction between the conjunctive and disjunctive interpretations of sets in another area.
 
3
Remember that the set of models of \(\bot\) is \(\emptyset\).
 
4
Called anhedonia as pointed out by a referee.
 
5
As noticed by a referee.
 
6
For simplicity, we assume that W does not contain unbearable interpretations.
 
7
The term guaranteed comes from the fact that in possibility theory, \(\Delta (A) = 1\) means that all instances of A can actually be observed. It contrasts with potential possibility, which takes value 1 as soon as one instance of A is observed.
 
8
This equality is the same as the one that Spohn ranking functions \(\kappa\) (Spohn 2012) satisfy, but identifying \(\Delta\) and \(\kappa\) would be misleading: \(\Delta\) and \(\kappa\) are antimonotonic with inclusion, but the ranges of \(\Delta\) and \(\kappa\), respectively [0, 1] and \({\mathbb {N}}\) (non-negative integers) are directed in opposite ways: \(\kappa ( A) = 0\) expresses full possibility, and the higher \(\kappa ( A)\) the more A is impossible, while \(\Delta (A) = 1\) expresses full possibility. When mapping \({\mathbb {N}}\) to [0, 1] via an order-reversing function (e.g., \(f(A) = 2^{-\kappa (A)})\), we obtain an increasing maxitive function: \(f(A\cup B) = \max (f(A),\, f(B))\), which departs from the characteristic property of \(\Delta\).
 
9
Note that wine and cheese are complementary, while beer and wine can be viewed as redundant, and thus less jointly desirable.
 
10
This distinction leads to the identification of two different kinds of moral dilemmas. The first kind of moral dilemma is the one which is determined by the logical conflict between two moral values. The paradigmatic example is the situation of a soldier during a war. As a member of the army, the soldier feels obliged to kills his enemies, if this is the only way to defend his country. But, as a catholic, he thinks that human life should be respected. Therefore, he feels morally obliged not to kill other people. The other kind of moral dilemma is the one which is determined by the logical conflict between desires and moral values. The paradigmatic example is that of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. They are tempted by the desire to eat the forbidden fruit and, at the same time, they have a moral obligation not to do it.
 
11
At least this is so in the book (Gärdenfors 1988) as the epistemic entrenchment is a consequence of the axioms.
 
12
In the paper, we use a very restrictive definition of epistemic entrenchment, which is the one in Gärdenfors (1988), that is, a total preorder relation on the language that obeys specific properties, which can only be justified if we take the two last AGM axioms for granted. Clearly one could envisage a less restrictive framework for desire revision, similar to the ones studied by Rott (2001) without (D*7) and (D*8).
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). Intention. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). Intention. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Zurück zum Zitat Banerjee, M., & Dubois, D. (2014). A simple logic for reasoning about incomplete knowledge. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 55, 639–653.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Banerjee, M., & Dubois, D. (2014). A simple logic for reasoning about incomplete knowledge. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 55, 639–653.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., & Prade, H. (2002). Bipolar possibilistic representations. In A. Darwiche & N. Friedman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th conference in uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI ’02) (pp. 45–52). Edmonton, Alberta: Morgan Kaufmann. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., & Prade, H. (2002). Bipolar possibilistic representations. In A. Darwiche & N. Friedman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th conference in uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI ’02) (pp. 45–52). Edmonton, Alberta: Morgan Kaufmann.
Zurück zum Zitat Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., & Prade, H. (2006). Bipolar possibility theory in preference modeling: Representation, fusion and optimal solutions. Information Fusion, 7, 135–150.CrossRef Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., & Prade, H. (2006). Bipolar possibility theory in preference modeling: Representation, fusion and optimal solutions. Information Fusion, 7, 135–150.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1999). Towards a possibilistic logic handling of preferences. In Proceedings of the 16th conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 99) (pp. 1370–1375). Stockholm: Morgan Kaufmann. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1999). Towards a possibilistic logic handling of preferences. In Proceedings of the 16th conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 99) (pp. 1370–1375). Stockholm: Morgan Kaufmann.
Zurück zum Zitat Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2001). A computational model for belief change and fusing ordered belief bases. In M.-A. Williams & H. Rott (Eds.), Frontiers in belief revision (pp. 109–134). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2001). A computational model for belief change and fusing ordered belief bases. In M.-A. Williams & H. Rott (Eds.), Frontiers in belief revision (pp. 109–134). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H., & Williams, M.-A. (2002). A practical approach to revising prioritized knowledge bases. Studia Logica, 70, 105–130.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H., & Williams, M.-A. (2002). A practical approach to revising prioritized knowledge bases. Studia Logica, 70, 105–130.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat Benferhat, S., & Kaci, S. (2003). Logical representation and fusion of prioritized information based on guaranteed possibility measures: Application to the distance-based merging of classical bases. Artificial Intelligence, 148(1–2), 291–333.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Benferhat, S., & Kaci, S. (2003). Logical representation and fusion of prioritized information based on guaranteed possibility measures: Application to the distance-based merging of classical bases. Artificial Intelligence, 148(1–2), 291–333.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat Boutilier, C. (1993). Revision sequences and nested conditionals. In Proceedings of the 13th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’93) (pp. 519–525). Chambéry: Morgan Kaufmann. Boutilier, C. (1993). Revision sequences and nested conditionals. In Proceedings of the 13th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’93) (pp. 519–525). Chambéry: Morgan Kaufmann.
Zurück zum Zitat Casali, A., Godo, L., & Sierra, C. (2011). A graded BDI agent model to represent and reason about preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 1468–1478.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Casali, A., Godo, L., & Sierra, C. (2011). A graded BDI agent model to represent and reason about preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 1468–1478.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat Castelfranchi, C., & Paglieri, F. (2007). The role of beliefs in goal dynamics: Prolegomena to a constructive theory of intentions. Synthese, 155(2), 237–263.MathSciNetCrossRef Castelfranchi, C., & Paglieri, F. (2007). The role of beliefs in goal dynamics: Prolegomena to a constructive theory of intentions. Synthese, 155(2), 237–263.MathSciNetCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Doyle, J., Shoham, Y., & Wellman, M. P. (1991). A logic of relative desire (preliminary report). In Z. Ras & M. Zemankova (Eds.), Methodologies for intelligent systems (ISMIS 1991), lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 542, pp. 16–31). New York: Springer. Doyle, J., Shoham, Y., & Wellman, M. P. (1991). A logic of relative desire (preliminary report). In Z. Ras & M. Zemankova (Eds.), Methodologies for intelligent systems (ISMIS 1991), lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 542, pp. 16–31). New York: Springer.
Zurück zum Zitat Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining behavior: Reasons in a world of causes. Cambridge: MIT Press. Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining behavior: Reasons in a world of causes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D. (1986). Belief structures, possibility theory and decomposable confidence measures on finite sets. Computers and Artificial Intelligence (Bratislava), 5(6), 403–416.MATH Dubois, D. (1986). Belief structures, possibility theory and decomposable confidence measures on finite sets. Computers and Artificial Intelligence (Bratislava), 5(6), 403–416.MATH
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D., Hajek, P., & Prade, H. (2000). Knowledge-driven versus data-driven logics. Journal of logic, Language and information, 9, 65–89.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Dubois, D., Hajek, P., & Prade, H. (2000). Knowledge-driven versus data-driven logics. Journal of logic, Language and information, 9, 65–89.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D., Lorini, E., & Prade, H. (2013). Bipolar possibility theory as a basis for a logic of desires and beliefs. In W. Liu, V. S. Subrahmanian, & J. Wijsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference scalable uncert. Mgmt. (SUM’13), LNCS 8078. Washington, DC: Springer. Dubois, D., Lorini, E., & Prade, H. (2013). Bipolar possibility theory as a basis for a logic of desires and beliefs. In W. Liu, V. S. Subrahmanian, & J. Wijsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference scalable uncert. Mgmt. (SUM’13), LNCS 8078. Washington, DC: Springer.
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D., Lorini, E., & Prade, H. (2014). Nonmonotonic desires–A possibility theory viewpoint. In R. Booth, G. Casini, S. Klarman, G. Richard, & I. J. Varzinczak (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshop on defeasible and ampliative reasoning (DARe@ECAI 2014) (Vol. 1212). Prague: CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Dubois, D., Lorini, E., & Prade, H. (2014). Nonmonotonic desires–A possibility theory viewpoint. In R. Booth, G. Casini, S. Klarman, G. Richard, & I. J. Varzinczak (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshop on defeasible and ampliative reasoning (DARe@ECAI 2014) (Vol. 1212). Prague: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D., Lorini, E., & Prade, H. (2015). Revising desires–A possibility theory viewpoint. In T. Andreasen, H. Christiansen, J. Kacprzyk, H. Larsen, G. Pasi, O. Pivert, G. De Tré, M. A. Vila, A. Yazici, & S. Zadrożny (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on flexible query answering systems (FQAS’15) (Vol. 400, pp. 3–13). Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing series. Dubois, D., Lorini, E., & Prade, H. (2015). Revising desires–A possibility theory viewpoint. In T. Andreasen, H. Christiansen, J. Kacprzyk, H. Larsen, G. Pasi, O. Pivert, G. De Tré, M. A. Vila, A. Yazici, & S. Zadrożny (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on flexible query answering systems (FQAS’15) (Vol. 400, pp. 3–13). Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing series.
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D., Lorini, E., & Prade, H. (2016). A possibility theory-based approach to desire change. In R. Booth, G. Casini, S. Klarman, G. Richard, & I. J. Varzinczak (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshop on defeasible and ampliative reasoning (DARe@ECAI 2016) (Vol. 1626). The Hague: CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Dubois, D., Lorini, E., & Prade, H. (2016). A possibility theory-based approach to desire change. In R. Booth, G. Casini, S. Klarman, G. Richard, & I. J. Varzinczak (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshop on defeasible and ampliative reasoning (DARe@ECAI 2016) (Vol. 1626). The Hague: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1992). Belief change and possibility theory. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief revision (pp. 142–182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1992). Belief change and possibility theory. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief revision (pp. 142–182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1998). Possibility theory: Qualitative and quantitative aspects. In D. Gabbay & P. Smets (Eds.), Quantified representation of uncertainty and imprecision, handbook of defeasible reasoning and uncertainty management systems (Vol. 1, pp. 169–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1998). Possibility theory: Qualitative and quantitative aspects. In D. Gabbay & P. Smets (Eds.), Quantified representation of uncertainty and imprecision, handbook of defeasible reasoning and uncertainty management systems (Vol. 1, pp. 169–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2004). Possibilistic logic: A retrospective and prospective view. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 144, 3–23.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2004). Possibilistic logic: A retrospective and prospective view. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 144, 3–23.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2009a). Accepted beliefs, revision and bipolarity in the possibilistic framework. In F. Huber & C. Schmidt-Petri (Eds.), Degrees of belief (pp. 161–184). New York: Springer.CrossRef Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2009a). Accepted beliefs, revision and bipolarity in the possibilistic framework. In F. Huber & C. Schmidt-Petri (Eds.), Degrees of belief (pp. 161–184). New York: Springer.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2009b). An overview of the asymmetric bipolar representation of positive and negative information in possibility theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 160(10), 1355–1366.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2009b). An overview of the asymmetric bipolar representation of positive and negative information in possibility theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 160(10), 1355–1366.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2012). Gradualness, uncertainty and bipolarity: Making sense of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 192, 3–24.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2012). Gradualness, uncertainty and bipolarity: Making sense of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 192, 3–24.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux. Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Cambridge: The MIT Press.MATH Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux. Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Cambridge: The MIT Press.MATH
Zurück zum Zitat Gärdenfors, P. (1990). Belief revision and nonmonotonic logic: Two sides of the same coin? In Proceedings of the 9th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI’90) (pp. 768–773). Stockholm. Gärdenfors, P. (1990). Belief revision and nonmonotonic logic: Two sides of the same coin? In Proceedings of the 9th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI’90) (pp. 768–773). Stockholm.
Zurück zum Zitat Harsanyi, J. (1955). Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 63, 309–321.CrossRef Harsanyi, J. (1955). Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 63, 309–321.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Harsanyi, J. (1982). Morality and the theory of rational behaviour. In A. K. Sen & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harsanyi, J. (1982). Morality and the theory of rational behaviour. In A. K. Sen & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Humberstone, I. L. (1992). Direction of fit. Mind, 101(401), 59–83.CrossRef Humberstone, I. L. (1992). Direction of fit. Mind, 101(401), 59–83.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature (2nd Oxford edn.). L. A. Selby-Bigge & P. H. Nidditch (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature (2nd Oxford edn.). L. A. Selby-Bigge & P. H. Nidditch (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Lang, J., & van der Torre, L. (1996). Conditional desires and utilities: An alternative logical approach to qualitative decision theory. In W. Wahlster (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European conference artificial intelligence (ECAI’96) (pp. 318–322). Budapest: Wiley . Lang, J., & van der Torre, L. (1996). Conditional desires and utilities: An alternative logical approach to qualitative decision theory. In W. Wahlster (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European conference artificial intelligence (ECAI’96) (pp. 318–322). Budapest: Wiley .
Zurück zum Zitat Lang, J., & van der Torre, L. (2008). From belief change to preference change. In M. Ghallab, C. D. Spyropoulos, N. Fakotakis, & N. M. Avouris (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI’08) (pp. 351–355). Patras: IOS Press. Lang, J., & van der Torre, L. (2008). From belief change to preference change. In M. Ghallab, C. D. Spyropoulos, N. Fakotakis, & N. M. Avouris (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI’08) (pp. 351–355). Patras: IOS Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Lang, J., van der Torre, L., & Weydert, E. (2002). Utilitarian desires. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 5, 329–363.CrossRef Lang, J., van der Torre, L., & Weydert, E. (2002). Utilitarian desires. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 5, 329–363.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lang, J., van der Torre, L., & Weydert, E. (2003). Hidden uncertainty in the logical representation of desires. In G. Gottlob & T. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’03) (pp. 685–690). Acapulco: Morgan Kaufmann. Lang, J., van der Torre, L., & Weydert, E. (2003). Hidden uncertainty in the logical representation of desires. In G. Gottlob & T. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’03) (pp. 685–690). Acapulco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Zurück zum Zitat Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke. Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke.
Zurück zum Zitat Lorini, E. (2014). A logic for reasoning about moral agents. Logique et Analyse, Centre National de Recherches en Logique (Belgium), 58(230), 177–218 .MathSciNet Lorini, E. (2014). A logic for reasoning about moral agents. Logique et Analyse, Centre National de Recherches en Logique (Belgium), 58(230), 177–218 .MathSciNet
Zurück zum Zitat Platts, M. (1979). Ways of meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Platts, M. (1979). Ways of meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Zurück zum Zitat Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1991). Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 473–484). Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1991). Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 473–484).
Zurück zum Zitat Rott, H. (2001). Change, choice and inference. A study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.MATH Rott, H. (2001). Change, choice and inference. A study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.MATH
Zurück zum Zitat Schroeder, T. (2004). Three faces of desires. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Schroeder, T. (2004). Three faces of desires. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Searle, J. (2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge: MIT Press. Searle, J. (2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Spohn, W. (2012). The laws of belief: Ranking theory and its philosophical applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Spohn, W. (2012). The laws of belief: Ranking theory and its philosophical applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefMATH Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat van Benthem, J., Girard, P., & Roy, O. (2009). Everything else being equal: A modal logic for ceteris paribus preferences. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38, 83–125.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH van Benthem, J., Girard, P., & Roy, O. (2009). Everything else being equal: A modal logic for ceteris paribus preferences. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38, 83–125.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat van Benthem, J., & Liu, F. (2007). Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17(2), 157–182.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH van Benthem, J., & Liu, F. (2007). Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17(2), 157–182.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat Von Wright, G. H. (1963). The logic of preference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Von Wright, G. H. (1963). The logic of preference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Von Wright, G. H. (1972). The logic of preference reconsidered. Theory and Decision, 3, 140–169.CrossRefMATH Von Wright, G. H. (1972). The logic of preference reconsidered. Theory and Decision, 3, 140–169.CrossRefMATH
Zurück zum Zitat Zadeh, L. A. (1978). PRUF: A meaning representation language for natural languages. International Journa of Man-Machine Studies, 10, 395–460.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Zadeh, L. A. (1978). PRUF: A meaning representation language for natural languages. International Journa of Man-Machine Studies, 10, 395–460.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Metadaten
Titel
The Strength of Desires: A Logical Approach
verfasst von
Didier Dubois
Emiliano Lorini
Henri Prade
Publikationsdatum
09.03.2017
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Minds and Machines / Ausgabe 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0924-6495
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8641
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9426-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

Minds and Machines 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Premium Partner