RELATING KNOWLEDGE SPECIFICATIONS BY REDUCTION MAPPINGS

Alexei Sharpanskykh, Jan Treur

Abstract

Knowledge can be specified at different levels of conceptualisation or abstraction. In this paper, lessons learned on the philosophical foundations of cognitive science are discussed, with a focus on how the relationships of cognitive theories with specific underlying (physical/biological) makeups can be dealt with. It is discussed how these results can be applied to relate different types of knowledge specifications. More specifically, it is shown how different knowledge specifications can be related by means of reduction relations, similar to how specifications of cognitive theories can be related to specifications within physical or biological contexts. By the example of a specific reduction approach, it is shown how the process of reduction can be automated, including mapping of specifications of different types and checking the fulfilment of reduction conditions.

References

  1. Bennett, M. R., Hacker, P M.S., 2003. Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Malden, MA: Blackwell
  2. Bickle, J., 1998. Psychoneural Reduction: The New Wave. MIT Press.
  3. Craver, C.F., 2001. Role Functions, Mechanisms and Hierarchy. Philosophy of Science, vol. 68, pp. 31-55.
  4. Galton, A., 2006. Operators vs Arguments: The Ins and Outs of Reification. Synthese, vol. 150, pp. 415-441.
  5. Gleitman, H., 2004. Psychology, W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
  6. Glennan, S. S., 1996. Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation, Erkenntnis, vol. 44, pp. 49-71.
  7. Hooker, C., 1981. Towards a General Theory of Reduction. Dialogue, vol. 20, pp. 38-59, 201-236.
  8. Kim, J., 1996. Philosophy of Mind. Westview Press.
  9. Kim, J., 2005. Physicalism, or Something Near Enough. Princeton University Press.
  10. Kreisel, G., 1955. Models, translations and interpretations. In Skolem, Th. Al. (eds.), Mathematical Interpretation of Formal Systems. NH, Amsterdam, pp. 26-50.
  11. Nagel, E., 1961. The Structure of Science. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York.
  12. Nipkow, T., Paulson, L. C., Wenzel, M., 2002. Isabelle/HOL - A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic, vol. 2283 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag.
  13. Schoenfield, J.R., 1967. Mathematical Logic. AddisonWesley.
  14. Tarski, A., Mostowski, A., Robinson, R.M., 1953. Undecidable Theories. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Sharpanskykh A. and Treur J. (2009). RELATING KNOWLEDGE SPECIFICATIONS BY REDUCTION MAPPINGS . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-8111-66-1, pages 29-36. DOI: 10.5220/0001654300290036


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icaart09,
author={Alexei Sharpanskykh and Jan Treur},
title={RELATING KNOWLEDGE SPECIFICATIONS BY REDUCTION MAPPINGS },
booktitle={Proceedings of the International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART,},
year={2009},
pages={29-36},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0001654300290036},
isbn={978-989-8111-66-1},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART,
TI - RELATING KNOWLEDGE SPECIFICATIONS BY REDUCTION MAPPINGS
SN - 978-989-8111-66-1
AU - Sharpanskykh A.
AU - Treur J.
PY - 2009
SP - 29
EP - 36
DO - 10.5220/0001654300290036