Universal Reasoning, Rational Argumentation and Human-Machine Interaction

نویسنده

  • Christoph Benzmüller
چکیده

Classical higher-order logic, when utilized as a meta-logic in which various other (classical and non-classical) logics can be shallowly embedded, is well suited for realising a universal logic reasoning approach. Universal logic reasoning in turn, as envisioned already by Leibniz, may support the rigorous formalisation and deep logical analysis of rational arguments within machines. A respective universal logic reasoning framework is described and a range of exemplary applications are discussed. In the future, universal logic reasoning in combination with appropriate, controlled forms of rational argumentation may serve as a communication layer between humans and intelligent machines. 1 Rational Argumentation – Communication Interface between Humans and Machines The ambition to understand, model and implement rational argumentation and universal logical reasoning independent of the human brain has a long tradition in the history of humankind. It reaches back at least to the prominent study of syllogistic arguments by Aristoteles. Today, with the event of increasingly intelligent computer technology, the question is more topical than ever: if humans and intelligent machines are supposed to amicably coexists, interact and collaborate, appropriate forms of communication between them are required. For example, machines should be able to depict, assess and defend their (options for) actions and decisions in a form that is accessible to human understanding and judgement. This will be crucial for achieving a reconcilable and socially accepted integration of intelligent machines into everyday (human) life. The communication means between machines and humans should ideally be based on human-level, rational argumentation, which since ages forms the fundament of our social, juridical and scientific processes. Current developments in artificial intelligence, in contrast, put a strong focus on statistical information, machine learning and subsymbolic representations, all of which are rather detached from human-level rational explanation, understanding and judgement. The challenge thus is to complement and enhance these human-unfriendly forms of reasoning and knowledge representation in todays artificial intelligence systems with suitable explanations amenable to human cognition, that is, rational arguments. Via exchange of rational arguments at human-intuitive level the much needed mutual understanding and acceptance between humans and intelligent machines can eventually be guaranteed. This is particularly relevant for the assessment of machine actions in terms of legal, ethical, moral, social and cultural norms purported by humans. But what formalisms are available that could serve as a most general basis for the modeling of human-level rational arguments in machines?

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Rational argument, rational inference

Reasoning researchers within cognitive psychology have spent decades examining the extent to which human inference measures up to normative standards. Work here has been dominated by logic, but logic has little to say about most everyday, informal arguments. Empirical work on argumentation within psychology and education has studied the development and improvement of argumentation skills, but h...

متن کامل

Classical Logic, Argumentation and Dialectic

A well studied instantiation of Dung’s abstract theory of argumentation yields argumentation-based characterisations of non-monotonic inference over possibly inconsistent sets of classical formulae. This provides for single-agent reasoning in terms of argument and counter-argument, and distributed non-monotonic reasoning in the form of dialogues between computational and or human agents. Howeve...

متن کامل

Argumentative Reasoning Theory: Explanation Aware Knowledge Representation

Argumentative Reasoning Theory (ART) is a theory of knowledge representation, reasoning, explanation, and argument interaction. It is designed to support intelligent human-computer collaboration. ART provides the ability to represent reasoning in a form that is computable, intuitive, and amenable to discovery. By integrating Toulmin’s model of argumentation, Mann and Thompson’s Rhetorical Struc...

متن کامل

On direct and indirect probabilistic reasoning in legal proof

In the academic literature three approaches to rational legal proof are investigated, broadly speaking based, respectively on Bayesian statistics, on scenario construction and on argumentation. In this paper these approaches are discussed in light of a distinction between direct and indirect probabilistic reasoning. Direct probabilistic reasoning directly reasons from evidence to hypotheses, wh...

متن کامل

Argumentation Theory for Decision Support in Health-Care: A Comparison with Machine Learning

This study investigates role of defeasible reasoning and argumentation theory for decision-support in the health-care sector. The main objective is to support clinicians with a tool for taking plausible and rational medical decisions that can be better justified and explained. The basic principles of argumentation theory are described and demonstrated in a well known health scenario: the breast...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • CoRR

دوره abs/1703.09620  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2017