Abstract
This chapter outlines possible future developments and prospects of computational argumentation systems on practical (means-end, goal-directed) reasoning in artificial intelligence by leading the reader through a series of simple examples, gradually leading to more complex examples. The Carneades Argumentation System is used to model the structure of the argumentation in these examples, and through this, it is shown how formal systems of deliberation dialogue need to be applied to problems posed by the more complex examples.
This chapter is a substantially revised and extended version of Walton, D. (2016). Intelligent Practical Reasoning for Autonomous Agents: An Introduction, Review of European Studies, 8(1), 2016, 1-19. CCBY4.0 license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
References
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2007) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif Intell 171:855–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.009
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2004) PARMENIDES: facilitating democratic debate. In: Traunmuller R (ed) Electronic government. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), p 3183. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30078-6_52
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, Walton D (2013) Distinctive features of persuasion and deliberation dialogues. Argum Comput 4(2):105–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2012.708670
Audi R (1989) Practical reasoning. Routledge, London
Bench-Capon TJM (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Log Comput 13:429–448. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/13.3.429
Bratman M (1987) Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Bratman M, Israel D, Pollack M (1988) Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Comput Intell 4:349–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.1988.tb00284.x
Engel P (ed) (2000) Believing and accepting. Kluwer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4042-3
Fairclough I, Fairclough N (2012) Political discourse analysis. Routledge, Oxford
Gordon TF (2010) The Carneades argumentation support system. In: Reed C, Tindale CW (eds) Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. College Publications, London
Gordon TF, Karacapilidis NI (1997) The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-1997). ACM Press, New York, pp 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/261618.261622
Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) The Carneades argumentation framework. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2006. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 195–207
Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In: Hafner CD (ed) Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 137–146
Gordon TF, Walton D (2011) Formal model of legal proof standards and burdens. In: van Eemeren FH et al (eds) Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 644–655
Gordon TF, Walton D (2016) Formalizing balancing arguments. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2016). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 327–338
Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10):875–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.010
Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, London
Hamblin CL (1971) Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37:130–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1971.tb00065.x
Lascher EL (1999) The politics of automobile insurance reform: ideas, institutions, and public policy in North America. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC
McBurney P, Hitchcock D, Parsons S (2007) The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. Int J Intell Syst 22:95–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20191
Paglieri F, Castelfranchi C (2005) Arguments as belief structure. In: Hitchcock D, Farr D (eds) The uses of argument: proceedings of a conference at McMaster University. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Hamilton, pp 356–367
Pollock JL (1995) Cognitive carpentry. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Prakken H (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum Comput 1:93–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462160903564592
Searle JR (2001) Rationality in action. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Toniolo A (2013) Models of argumentation for deliberative dialogue in complex domains, Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.708.328&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Tuomela R (2013) Social ontology: collective intentionality and group agents. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199978267.001.0001
van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
von Wright GH (1963) Practical inference. Philos Rev 72:159–179. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183102
Walton D (1990) Practical reasoning: goal-driven, knowledge-based, action-guiding argumentation. Rowman & Littlefield, Savage
Walton D (1998) The new dialectic. University of Toronto Press, Toronto
Walton D (2007) Evaluating practical reasoning. Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Logic and Philosophy of Science 157:197–240
Walton D (2015) Goal-based reasoning for argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316340554
Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Walton D, Toniolo A, Norman TJ (2016) Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: closure problem and change of circumstances. Argum Comput 7(2–3):155–173
Wooldridge M (2002) An introduction to multi agent systems. Wiley, Chichester
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for support of this work through Insight Grant 435-2012-0104.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG (outside the USA)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walton, D. (2019). Practical Reasoning in the Deliberations of an Intelligent Autonomous Agent. In: Vallverdú, J., Müller, V. (eds) Blended Cognition. Springer Series in Cognitive and Neural Systems, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03104-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03104-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03103-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03104-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)