Skip to main content
Log in

A sense-based, process model of belief

  • General Article
  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AleliunisR. (1988), ‘A New Normative Theory of Probabilistic Logic’, Proceedings of the Seventh Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, pp. 67–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • BarndenJ. A. (1986), ‘Imputations and Explications: Representational Problems in Treatments of Propositional Attitudes’, Cognitive Science 10, pp. 319–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • BarwiseJ and PerryJ. (1983), Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • BrachmanR. J. (1977), ‘What's in a Concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Networks’, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 9, pp. 127–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • BurgeT. (1984), ‘Epistemic Paradox’, Journal of Philosophy 81, pp. 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • ChurchA. (1954), ‘Intensional Isomorphism and Identity of Belief’, Philosophical Studies 5, pp. 65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • CresswellM. J. (1985), Structured Meanings: The semantics of Propositional Attitudes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • deKleerJ. (1986), ‘An Assumption-Based TMS’, Artificial Intelligence 28, pp. 127–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • DoyleJ. (1979), ‘A Truth Maintenance System’, Artificial Intelligence 12, pp. 231–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • DoyleJ. (1983), ‘The Ins and Outs of Reason Maintenance’, in Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-83, Karlsruhe), Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 349–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • FaginR and HalpernJ. (1985), ‘Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning’, Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-85, Los Angeles), Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 491–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • FregeG. (1892), ‘On Sense and Reference’, in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, (Eds.) GeachP. & BlackM., (1952) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • GilmoreP. (1974), ‘The Consistency of Partial Set Theory without Extensionality’, in Axiomatic Set Theory, (ed.) JechT., Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • GoodwinJ. W. (1985), ‘A Process Theory of Non-Monotonic Inference’, Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (IJCAI-85, Los Angeles), Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 185–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • HaasA. (1985), ‘Possible Events, Actual Events, and Robots’ Computational Intelligence 1 (2), pp. 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • HaasA. (1986), ‘A Syntactic Theory of Belief and Action’, Artificial Intelligence 28, pp. 245–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • HadleyR. F. (1986), ‘Fagin and Halpern on Logical Omniscience, a Critique with an Alternative’, Proceedings of the Sixth Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal: University of Montreal Press, pp. 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • HadleyR. F. (1988), ‘Logical Omniscience, Semantics and Models of Belief’, Computational Intelligence 4, pp. 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • HadleyR. F. (1989), ‘A Default-Oriented Theory of Procedural Semantics’, Cognitive Science 13, pp. 107–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • HadleyR. F. (1989b), ‘An Intension-Based Model of Nested Epistemic Processes’, Technical Report CSS-IS TR 89-04, Centre for Systems Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B. C., Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • HadleyR. F. (1991), ‘The Many Uses of ‘Belief’ in AI’, Minds and Machines 1, pp. 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • HalpernJ and MosesY. (1985), ‘A Guide to the Modal Logics of Knowledge and Belief: Preliminary Report’, Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (IJCAI-85, Los Angeles), Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 480–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • HintikkaJ. (1962), Knowledge and Belief, An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions, Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HintikkaJ. (1969), Models for Modalities, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • HobbsJ. R. and RosenscheinS. J. (1978), ‘Making Computational Sense of Montague's Intensional Logic’, Artificial Intelligence 9, pp. 287–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • KleeneS. C. (1952), Introduction to Meta-Mathematics, New York, NY: Wolters-Noordhoff Publishing and North-Holland Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • KonoligeK. (1985), ‘A Computational Theory of Belief Introspection’, Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (IJCAI-85, Los Angeles), Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 503–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • KripkeS. (1975), ‘Outline of a Theory of Truth’, Journal of Philosophy 72, pp. 690–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • LakemeyerG. (1987), ‘Tractable Meta-Reasoning in Propositional Logics of Belief’, Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (IJCAI-87, Milan), Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 401–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, H. J. (1984), ‘A Logic of Implicit and Explicit Belief’, Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, TX: pp. 198–202.

  • LewisD. (1970), ‘General Semantics’, Synthese 22, pp. 18–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • MaidaA. S. and ShapiroS. C. (1982), ‘Intensional Concepts in Propositional Semantic Networks,’ Cognitive Science 6, pp. 291–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • MaidaA. S. (1986), ‘Introspection and Reasoning about the Beliefs of Other Agents’, Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., pp. 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • MartinsJ. and ShapiroS. (1988), ‘A Model of Belief Revision’, Artificial Intelligence 35, pp. 25–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • MontagueR. (1960), ‘A Paradox Regained’, reprinted in Formal Philosophy, (ed.) ThomasonR., New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, (1974), pp. 271–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • MontagueR. (1970), ‘Universal Grammar’, Theoria 36, pp. 222–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • MooreG. E. (1942), ‘Reply to My Critics’, in The Philosophy of G. E. Moore, (ed.) P.Schilpp, Evanston and Chicago: Northwestern University Press, pp. 660–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • PearlJ. (1986), ‘Fusion, Propagation, and Structuring in Belief Networks, Artificial Intelligence 29, pp. 241–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • PerlisD. (1985), ‘Languages with Self-Reference I: Foundations’, Artificial Intelligence 25, pp. 301–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • PerlisD. (1988), ‘Languages with Self-Reference II: Knowledge, Belief, and Modality’, Artificial Intelligence, 35, pp. 179–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • RapaportW. J. (1986), ‘Logical Foundations for Belief Representation,’ Cognitive Science 10, pp. 371–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • StrawsonP. F. (1956), ‘On Referring’, in Essays in Conceptual Analysis, (ed.) FlewA., London: MacMillan and Co. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • TarskiA. (1936), ‘Der Warheitsbegriff in den Formalisierten Sprachen’, Studia Philos 1, pp. 261–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • TurnerR. (1989), Truth and Modality for Knowledge Representation, London: Pitman Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WilksY. and BalliamA. (1987), ‘Multiple Agents and the Heuristic Ascriptions of Belief’, Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (IJCAI-87, Milan), Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 118–124.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hadley, R.F. A sense-based, process model of belief. Minds and Machines 1, 279–320 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351182

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351182

Key words

Navigation