Belief, Intention, and Practicality: Loosening Up Agents and Their Propositional Attitudes

  • Richmond H. ThomasonEmail author
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 369)


The beliefs of a single agent are typically treated in logic and philosophy as a single modality or epistemic attitude. I argue that it is better to treat belief as a family of loosely related modalities. This approach to belief, along with mechanisms for constructing modalities and for activating a modality that is appropriate for a specific reasoning situation, seems to provide a much better model of the relation of belief to intention in deliberative reasoning. I discuss this and other applications of this more flexible conception of belief and similar attitudes.


Belief Intention Deliberative reasoning Practical reasoning Doxastic attitudes 



Thanks for comments to Sarah Buss, Jason Konek, David Manley, Daniel Singer, Peter Railton.


  1. Armendt, B. (2010). Stakes and beliefs. Philosophical Studies, 147(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baier, J.A., & McIlraith, S.A. (2008). Planning with preferences. The AI Magazine, 29(4), 25–36.Google Scholar
  3. Bratman, M.E., Israel, D., Pollack, M. (1988). Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 4, 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, H.H., & Marshall, C.R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, H.H., & Schober, M. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A. (1999). Model checking. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  7. Doherty, P. (2004). Advanced research with autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles. In D. Dubois, C.A. Welty, & M.-A. Williams (Eds.), KR2004: Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Whistler (pp. 731–732). Menlo Park: AAAI.Google Scholar
  8. Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  9. Fargier, H., & Sabbadin, R. (2005). Qualitative decision under uncertainty: Back to expected utility. Artificial Intelligence, 164(1–2), 245–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guha, R.V. (1991). Contexts: A formalization and some applications. Technical report STAN-CS-91-1399, Stanford Computer Science Department, Stanford.Google Scholar
  11. Kripke, S.A. (1979). A puzzle about belief. In A. Margalit (Ed.), Meaning and use: Papers presented at the second Jerusalem philosophy encounter (pp. 239–288). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCarthy, J., & Buvač, S. (1998). Formalizing context (expanded notes). In A. Aliseda, R. van Glabbeek, & D. Westerståhl (Eds.), Computing natural language (pp. 13–50). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  13. Minsky, M. (1985). The society of mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  14. Minsky, M. (2006). The emotion machine. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  15. Nebel, B. (2002). The philosophical soccer player. In D. Fensel, F. Giunchiglia, D.L. McGuinness, & M.-A. Williams (Eds.), KR2002: Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Toulouse (p. 631). San Francisco: Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  16. Newell, A. (1982). The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 18(1), 82–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Newell, A. (1992). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Reiter, R. (2001). Knowledge in action: Logical foundations for specifying and implementing dynamical systems. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Savage, L. (1972). The foundations of statistics, 2nd edn. Dover: New York.Google Scholar
  20. Shanahan, M., & Rundell, D. (2004). A logic-based formulation of active visual perception. In D. Dubois, C.A. Welty, & M.-A. Williams (Eds.), KR2004: Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Whistler (pp. 64–72). Menlo Park: AAAI.Google Scholar
  21. Stalnaker, R.C. (1972). Pragmatics. In D. Davidson & G.H. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 380–397). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stalnaker, R.C. (1975). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M.K. Munitz & P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy (pp. 197–213). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  23. Thomason, R.H. (1987). The multiplicity of belief and desire. In M.P. Georgeff & A. Lansky (Eds.), Reasoning about actions and plans (pp. 341–360). Los Altos: Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thomason, R.H. (2000). Modeling the beliefs of other agents. In J. Minker (Ed.), Logic-based artificial intelligence (pp. 375–473). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thomason, R.H. (2002). The beliefs of other agents.
  26. Thomason, R.H. (2005). Making contextual intensional logic nonmonotonic. In A. Dey, B. Kokinov, D. Leake, & R. Turner (Eds.), Modeling and using context: 5th international and interdisciplinary conference, Pairs (pp. 502–514). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Thomason, R.H. (2007). Three interactions between context and epistemic locutions. In B. Kokinov, D.C. Richardson, T.R. Roth-Berghofer, & L. View (Eds.), Modeling and using context: Sixth international and interdisciplinary conference, context 2007, Roskilde (pp. 467–481). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Wooldridge, M.J. (2000). Reasoning about rational agents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations