Newsgroups: ut.ai
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ai.toronto.edu!tjhorton
From: tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu ("Timothy J. Horton")
Subject: seminars at York -- forwarded
Message-ID: <8803181657.AA14184@ai.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu (Timothy J. Horton)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: tor
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 88 11:57:18 EST

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From gpu.utcs.toronto.edu!yorkvm1.bitnet!COGSCI-L Fri Mar 18 08:58:01 1988
Sender: Cognitive Science Discussion Group <COGSCI-L@yorkvm1.bitnet>
From: Michael Friendly <FRIENDLY@yorkvm1.bitnet>
Subject:      March 25th meeting
     
       :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
       |                                                               |
       |              Cognitive Science Discussion Group               |
       |                                                               |
       |   Speaker : Peter Roosen-Runge (Computer Science, York)       |
       |   Title   : Forward-chained vs. Backward-chained Rules:       |
       |             A Crucial Polarity in Cognitive Models            |
       |   Date    : Friday, Mar. 25, 1988 -- 1pm                      |
       |   Location: Rm 207 Behavioural Science Bldg., York University |
       |                                                               |
       :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
     
                                   Abstract
     
       The directionality of  rules in a program seems to  be related to
       deep issues in epistemology.   I will briefly sketch how the con-
       trast between  forward- and backward-chained rules  is manifested
       in AI software,  and how it corresponds to well-known oppositions
       in the structure of scientific theories, in the structure of com-
       puter programs, and in problem-solving strategies.
     
          More speculatively, I will suggest that backward-chaining is a
       necessary and  almost   sufficient  requirement  for   a  symbol-
       processing system to exhibit a  minimal form of "intentionality".
       (As an argumentative corollary:   Prolog  is thus much more rele-
       vant to  cognitive science than is Lisp).
     
          If correct,  this result refutes a basic premise of the highly
       influential Newell/Anderson approach to cognitive modelling which
       has been  entirely based on explicitly  forward-chained architec-
       tures.