Computational Dialectics for Arguing Agents
نویسنده
چکیده
In this paper, we extract its computational content from Hegelian Marxist dialectics and consider the utilization in agents’ world. This is a novel approach to conflict resolution, cooperation, reconciliation, negotiation and so on that are main concerns in agent-oriented computing. We first examine two approaches to static dialectical logics: the dialectical logics DL and DM by Routley and Meyer, and the paraconsistent dialectical logic by da Costa. Then, we consider how to render those dialectical logics dynamic, introducing some dialectical inference rules on top of DL and DM and the definitions of Aufheben. We also discuss the meaning and utilization of the law of the negation of the negation in agents’ world as well. In order to realize those aspects of dialectics computationally, we built the argument-based agent systems in which dialectics plays an important role in decision-making, attaining agreements and reaching an understanding among agents. We illustrate two applications of those systems.
منابع مشابه
Educational Human-computer Debate: a Computational Dialectics Approach
Theories of learning suggest that dialogue is important in shaping conceptual development. However, there is widespread debate as to the forms of dialogue and which are effective in an educational context. In addressing these issues, we have analysed current knowledge concerning dialectics in philosophy and education. We propose to adopt a computational dialectical approach to study the issues ...
متن کاملTesting Computational Dialectic
Computational dialectics are a powerful way to structure the communicative acts that are expressed during the process of argumentation. Many such systems have been proposed but there has been no consensus over what constitutes a good system, or on what basis such a consensus could be built. This paper introduces a testbed for computational dialectics that enables disparate systems to be easily ...
متن کاملDialectical Planning: Designing a mediating system for group decision making
Planning of real world instances has to be performed through a lot of debates, negotiations and arguments between groups of planning agents. Conflicts of interest are inevitable and support for achieving consensus and compromise is required. The identification and selection among alternative courses of action have to be supported with rational, fair and effective decision-making models, especia...
متن کاملSystème dialectique au travers duquel les agents argumentatifs jouent et arbitrent : vers une prise de décision collective et débattue
We propose in this paper DIAL, a framework for inter-agents dialogue, which formalize a deliberative process. This framework bounds a dialectics system in which argumentative agents arbitrate and play to reach an agreement. For this purpose, we propose an argumentation-based reasoning to manage the conflicts between arguments having different strengths for different agents. Moreover, we propose...
متن کاملIs It Worth Arguing?
Argumentation-based negotiation (ABN) is an effective means of resolving conflicts in a multi-agent society. However, it consumes both time and computational resources for agents to generate, select and evaluate arguments. Furthermore, in many cases, argumentation is not the only means of resolving conflicts. Thus, some could be avoided either by finding an alternative means (evading the confli...
متن کامل