I am populating this file from the bottom up. Later years are still empty. Try stuff in or before 1998 for a start. My Oxford DPhil Thesis (1962) is the oldest item available here.

I show how a conversational process that takes simple, intuitively meaningful steps may be understood as a sophisticated computation that derives the richly detailed, complex representations implicit in our knowledge of language. To develop the account, I argue that natural language is structured in a way that lets us formalize grammatical knowledge precisely in terms of rich primitives of interpretation. Primitives of interpretation can be correctly viewed intentionally, as explanations of our choices of linguistic actions; the model therefore fits our (...) intuitions about meaning in conversation. Nevertheless, interpretations for complex utterances can be built from these primitives by simple operations of grammatical derivation. In bridging analyses of meaning at semantic and symbol‐processing levels, this account underscores the fundamental place for computation in the cognitive science of language use. (shrink)

Those who believe that explicitly Christian thinking is possible in the scientific disciplines tend to assume that it must be antithetical to the world’s thinking. Based on some of the author’s experience, this article examines a different approach, in which Christian thinking is used to account for and enrich the world’s thinking by transplanting it from its current ground-motive into the arguably more fertile soil of the creation-fall-redemption ground-motive. The article shows how Dooyeweerd’s version of Christian thinking has been employed (...) in two areas of thinking in information systems : thinking about the nature of computers and information, with the artificial intelligence question of whether computer is like human being soft systems methodology, by which perspectives on ‘human activity systems’ are orchestrated into new learning and plans. In both areas, the original ideas are accounted for, given philosophical underpinning, reinterpreted and enriched. These two show that Dooyeweerd’s philosophy can be equally useful in thinking grounded in both positivist and interpretivist cultures. (shrink)

Knowledge representation is one of the central concepts in Artificial Intelligence. It is very common that knowledge about a field is expressed in natural language. Therefore, most of the times, knowledge representation using a logic programming language derives into a translation problem. This translation consists in the formalization of the statements, belonging to the knowledge level, which are converted into formulas of the so called symbolic level. Knowledge may be imprecise or vague and, in order to deal with vagueness using (...) declarative techniques, fuzzy logic programming amalgamates classical logic programming and fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic programming has mainly led to programming languages that use annotations to represent vagueness. But vagueness is a linguistic phenomenon which is implicit in the statements of the knowledge level. Hence, the natural connection existing between these two levels is broken when annotations are employed, since they introduce weights in a symbolic level which are not present in the knowledge level and converts knowledge representation in a more complex, counterintuitive task. In order to overcome this problem, we propose a fuzzy linguistic logic framework which allows the treatment of imprecision through linguistic resources. This framework makes a clean separation between precise knowledge and vague knowledge. In this paper, we argue that this separation is more declarative than the one dispensed by the approach based on annotations, and can be beneficial for modeling a problem. (shrink)

Velmans’ paper raises three problems concerning mental causation: (1) How can consciousness affect the physical, given that the physical world appears causally closed? 10 (2) How can one be in conscious control of processes of which one is not consciously aware? (3) Conscious experiences appear to come too late to causally affect the processes to which they most obviously relate. In an appendix Velmans gives his reasons for refusing to resolve these problems through adopting the position (which he labels ‘physicalism’) (...) that ‘consciousness is nothing more than a state of the brain’. The rest of the paper, then, is an attempt to solve these problems without embracing a reductionist physicalism. Velmans’ solution to the first problem is ‘ontological monism combined with epistemological dualism’: First-person and third-person accounts are two different ways of knowing the same facts. This kind of reply is not new; it is, for example, a twist on the position expressed in Davidson (1970). True, there are substantial differences: For one, Davidson reconciles the tension between descriptions of events in mentalistic and physicalist language, not between firstand third-person descriptions of states; for another, Davidson actually provides an argument for his position, although to do so he assumes that there are no psycho-physical (or indeed, psycho-psycho) laws, something which I suspect Velmans would be reluctant to do. Nevertheless, they have in common the idea that the causal efficacy of the mental is not at odds with the causal closure of physics, since a mind-involving causal story is just another way of talking about the same facts that a purely physical causal story talks about. This ‘dual-aspect’ approach is a popular tactic for resolving the mind--body problem, but it has some well-known problems, and it is unfortunate Velmans doesn’t reply to these standard objections. For example, a frequently discussed issue in connection with theories of mental causation is the problem of overdetermination (see, e.g., Unger, 1977; Peacocke, 1979). (shrink)