Semantic Information and Artificial Intelligence

  • Anderson Beraldo de AraújoEmail author
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 376)


For a computational system to be intelligent, it should be able to perform, at least, basic deductions. Nonetheless, since deductions are, in some sense, equivalent to tautologies, it seems that they do not provide new information. In order to analyze this problem, the present article proposes a measure of the degree of semantic informativity of valid deductions. Concepts of coherency and relevancy, displayed in terms of insertions and deletions on databases, are used to define semantic informativity. In this way, the article shows that a solution to the problem about informativity of deductions provides a heuristic principle to improve the deductive power of computational systems.


Semantic information Artifial intelligence Scandal of deduction 



I would like to thank Viviane Beraldo de Araújo for her support, to Luciano Floridi for his comments on my talk given at PT-AI2013, and to Pedro Carrasqueira for his comments and to an anonymous referee for his (her) criticism on a previous version of this paper. This work was supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2011/07781-2].


  1. Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo, A. (2014, forthcoming). A metrics for semantic informativity.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. (1989). Prior analytics (R. Smith, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  4. Brandom, R. (1989). Making it explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. D’Agostino, M., & Floridi, L. (2009). The enduring scandal of deduction: Is propositional logic really uninformative? Synthese, 167(2), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ebbinghaus, H., & Flum, J. (1999). Finite model theory. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Floridi, L. (2004). Outline of a theory of strongly semantic information. Minds and Machines, 14(2), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Floridi, L. (2011). Philosophy of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hintikka, J. (1973). Logic, language games and information. Kantian themes in the philosophy of logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kroenke, D., & Auer, D. (2007). Database concepts. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Sequoiah-Grayson, S. (2008). The scandal of deduction. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37(1), 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Valiant, L. (1984). A theory of the learnable. Communications of the ACM, 27(11), 1134–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Valiant, L. (2008). Knowledge infusion: In R. Hariharan & M. Mukund (Eds.), Pursuit of robustness in artificial intelligence. In FSTTCS 2008, Bangalore (pp. 415–422).Google Scholar
  14. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Natural and Human Sciences (CCNH)Federal University of ABC (UFABC)São Bernardo do CampoBrazil

Personalised recommendations