Minds and Machines

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 117–128 | Cite as

An Instance vs. The Instance

  • Kumiko Tanaka-Ishii


This article argues how one problem of computing lies in realizing a significant instance given a class or type. Analysis of a case study on digital narrative suggests two general processes for instantiating significant instances: interaction and optimization. The article then explains how the problem of universals needs to be deconstructed when trying to understand what type of entities significant instances are and what the process for obtaining them is.


Instance Class Optimization Interaction The problem of universals Deconstruction 


  1. Andre, E., Binstead, K., Tanaka-Ishii, K., Luke, S., Herzog, G., & Rist, T. (2000). Three RoboCup simulation league commentator systems. Artificial Intelligence Magazine, Spring(21), 73–85.Google Scholar
  2. Benjamin, W. (1930). The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility (chapter 1, pp. 19–55). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (trans: Jephcott, E., Livingstone, R., Eiland, H., et al., 2008).Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, C. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Foucault, M. (2002). Archaeology of knowledge (Part III-4). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Kitano, H., Asada, M., Kuniyoshi, Y., Noda, I., & Osawa, E. (1995). Robocup: The robot world cup initiative. In First International Conference on Autonomous Agents.Google Scholar
  6. Lonneker, B., Meister, J., Gervas, P., Peinado, F., & Mateas, F. (2005). Story generators: Models and approaches for the generation of literary artefacts. In the 17th Joint International Conference of the Association for Computers and the Humanities and the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing (pp. 126–133). Victoria, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. MacKenzie, S., & Tanaka-Ishii, K. (Eds.). (2007). Text entry systems—Accessibility, mobility, universality. Morgan Kaufmann (Elsevier). Co-authored chapters 2, 5, 10, 11, 13.Google Scholar
  8. Peirce, C. (1931). Collected papers. Cambridge: Harvard Press.Google Scholar
  9. Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of folktale. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  10. Propp, V. (1984). Theory and history of folklore. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 45.Google Scholar
  12. Tanaka-Ishii, K., Frank, I., & Hasida, K. (2000). Multi-agent explanation strategies in real-time domains. In the 36th Annual Meeting for Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 158–165).Google Scholar
  13. Tanaka-Ishii, K., & Ishii, Y. (2008). Being and doing as ontological constructs in object-oriented programming. Journal of Applied Semiotics, 20. Web online Journal (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  14. Tanaka-Ishii, K., Noda, I., Frank, I., Nakashima, H., Hasida, K., & Matsubara, H. (1998). MIKE: An automatic commentary system for soccer—System design and control. In International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 285–292). IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  15. Ungar, D., & Smith, R. (1987). Self: The power of simplicity, Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, and Applications (pp. 227–242). Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  16. Xu, S., Lau, C., Cheung, W. K., & Pan, Y. (2005). Automatic generation of artistic Chinese calligraphy. Journal of Intelligent Systems, 20, 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yamanouchi, S. (2008). The problem of universals—as the source of modernism. Heibonsha Library.Google Scholar
  18. Yonemori, Y. (1981). Semiotics of Peirce (p. 62). Tokyo: Keiso Shobo (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations