权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Conditionals and Information Transfer

条件和信息传输

基本信息

批准号：
208598091
负责人：
Professor Dr. Wolfgang Spohn
金额：
--
依托单位：
Zentrum Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie
依托单位国家：
德国
项目类别：
Research Units
财政年份：
2012
资助国家：
德国
起止时间：
2011-12-31 至 2018-12-31
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/208598091?language=en
关键词：
Conditionals Information Transfer

项目摘要

The goal of the renewal project Conditionals and Information Transfer is both to address two questions from the first phase that have remained partially unanswered (Part 1) and to tie the responses with a complex of questions on the information transfer effected by conditionals (Part 2). This second complex of questions and issues has not yet been explored during the first project phase.The first sub-goal of Part 1 consists in checking the accuracy of two important hypotheses about the philosophically contested truth-evaluability of conditionals: the hypothesis that the truth conditions of conditionals are given by the background assumptions on which the acceptance of the conditional rests, and the further hypothesis that the conditional relation itself is truth-evaluable to the extent described by the objectification theory for ranking functions.The second sub-goal is closely related to the issue of truth-evaluablity. It consists in investigating the syntactic and semantic conditions under which conditionals can be embedded in logically complex sentences (in close cooperation with the linguistic projects P2 and P8). It harks back to the observation that conditionals cannot be felicitously embedded under connectives like "or" or even as the antecedent of a more complex conditional.The exploration of these open questions from the first phase will be complemented, in Part 2, by a broad array of questions concerning the information transfer "facilitated" by conditionals. This array will be organized as follows:The first question to be addressed is whether a hearer processes conditional information the same way in which she processes factual information. There is evidence that the dynamics of forming new beliefs and changing degrees of existing beliefs differs when the input is a conditional belief, but the nature of the impact of conditional beliefs on a given body of beliefs is unclear and yet to be investigated.Second, building on the result of this prior investigation possible ways of translating the processing of conditional information into an algorithm shall be explored, with the hope that this knowledge can be put to use in the design of artificially intelligent agents. Ideally, one could build robots, feed them certain bits of conditional information and observe how this affects the way in which they carry out their tasks.Third, there will be research on the impact conditional information has on the common ground, which is the space of assumptions the parties to a conversation make for the sake of their conversation. Depending on the previous results, our conception of the common ground will have to be altered or enriched. E.g., it is an open question whether the common ground should also contain probabilistic information. Fine-tuning a philosophically more satisfying conception of the common ground and integrating that conception with a dynamic or update semantics for conditionals is going to constitute the project`s conclusion.

更新项目条件和信息传输的目标是解决第一阶段中仍未得到部分解答的两个问题（第1部分），并将这些回答与有关条件影响的信息传输的一系列问题联系起来（第2部分）。在第一个项目阶段尚未探讨第二个复杂的问题和议题。第一部分的第一个子目标是检查关于哲学上有争议的条件的真值可评估性的两个重要假设的准确性：一个假设是条件的真值条件是由背景假设给出的，条件的接受取决于背景假设，另一个假设是条件关系本身在排序函数的客体化理论所描述的程度上是可评估的。第二个子目标与真理可评估性问题密切相关。它包括研究条件可以嵌入逻辑复杂句子的句法和语义条件（与语言学项目P2和P8密切合作）。这又回到了一个观察，即条件句不能恰当地嵌入到诸如“或”之类的连接词中，甚至不能作为更复杂条件句的先行词。在第2部分中，对第一阶段的这些开放性问题的探索将由一系列关于条件“促进”的信息传递的广泛问题加以补充。这个数组将按如下方式组织：要解决的第一个问题是听者处理条件信息的方式是否与她处理事实信息的方式相同。有证据表明，当输入是条件信念时，形成新信念和改变现有信念的程度的动力是不同的，但条件信念对给定信念体的影响的本质是不清楚的，还有待研究。其次，在先前调查结果的基础上，探索将条件信息处理转化为算法的可能方法，希望这些知识可以用于人工智能代理的设计。理想情况下，人们可以制造机器人，给它们提供特定的条件信息，并观察这些信息如何影响它们执行任务的方式。第三，将研究条件信息对共同点的影响，共同点是对话各方为对话而做出的假设空间。根据以前的结果，我们关于共同基础的概念必须加以改变或丰富。例如，公共基础是否也应该包含概率信息是一个悬而未决的问题。微调一个哲学上更令人满意的公共基础概念，并将该概念与条件的动态或更新语义集成，将构成项目的结论。