Advertisement

Computer Models of Constitutive Social Practice

  • Richard Prideaux EvansEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 376)

Abstract

This paper describes a computer implementation of the Game of Giving and Asking for Reasons, as described in Making It Explicit. First, I rehearse the distinction between regulative and constitutive views of social practice. It is noteworthy that much multi-agent AI research has been based on the regulative view, despite the philosophical attractions of the constitutive view. Then I distinguish between two sub-types of constitutive interpretation, divided by whether or not intentionality itself is viewed as a bundle of capacities that is constituted by participation in practices. Then I describe a detailed model of the Game of Giving and Asking for Reasons, as a first step in the project of showing how intentionality itself can be realised in a set of practices. I describe the technical points at which I was forced to deviate from Brandom’s original description.

Keywords

Conversation games Turing test Social practice Multi-agent simulation Modeling Inference Robert Brandom 

References

  1. Austin, J. L. (1956). Ifs and cans. Proceedings of the British Academy, 42, 109–132.Google Scholar
  2. Brandom, R. (1998). Making it explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brandom, R. (2008). Between saying and doing. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Johnstone, K. (1987). Impro. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Jones, A., & Sergot, M. (1996). A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 4(3), 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Moses, Y., & Tenenholtz, M. (1992). On computational aspects of artificial social systems. In Proceedings of 11th DAI Workshop, Glen Arbor.Google Scholar
  7. Rawls, J. (1955). Two concepts of rules. The Philosophical Review, 64(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Sellars, W. (1954). Some reflections on language games. Philosophy of Science, 21(3), 204–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shoham, Y. (2008). Multiagent systems. Cambridge/London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wittgenstein, L. (1961). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Imperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations