William J. Rapaport

For a formal language, one usually only considers semantic interpretations which are complete: for each singular referring expression in the language, there corresponds an element of the universe of discourse. However, natural languages only have a partial interpretation function when given such a set- or model-theoretic semantics whose universe of discourse (or "model") is taken to be the real, physical world. To put semantics on a par with syntax for parity of treatment of natural and formal languages, two alternatives suggest themselves. (1) The syntax of a natural language can be changed so that the interpretation function becomes total. What I urge, on the other hand, is (2) that we change the semantics of natural language, as outlined earlier, by enlarging the range of the interpretation function to make it total. I suggest making the world fit our language by adding Meinongian objects to it.

_A unique resource exploring the nature of computers and computing, and their relationships to the world._ _Philosophy of Computer Science_ is a university-level textbook designed to guide readers through an array of topics at the intersection of philosophy and computer science. Accessible to students from either discipline, or complete beginners to both, the text brings readers up to speed on a conversation about these issues, so that they can read the literature for themselves, form their own reasoned opinions, and become part of the conversation by contributing their own views. Written by a highly qualified author in the field, the book looks at some of the central questions in the philosophy of computer science, including: What is philosophy? (for readers who might be unfamiliar with it) What is computer science and its relationship to science and to engineering? What are computers, computing, algorithms, and programs?(Includes a line-by-line reading of portions of Turing’s classic 1936 paper that introduced Turing Machines, as well as discussion of the Church-Turing Computability Thesis and hypercomputation challenges to it) How do computers and computation relate to the physical world? What is artificial intelligence, and should we build AIs? Should we trust decisions made by computers? A companion website contains annotated suggestions for further reading and an instructor’s manual. _Philosophy of Computer Science_ is a must-have for philosophy students, computer scientists, and general readers who want to think philosophically about computer science.

Deliberate contextual vocabulary acquisition (CVA) is a reader’s ability to figure out a meaning for an unknown word from its “context.” without external sources of help. The appropriate context for such CVA is the “belief-revised integration” of the reader’s prior knowledge with the reader’s “internalization” of the text. We present and defend a computational theory of CVA that we have adapted to a new classroom curriculum designed to help students use CVA to improve their reading comprehension.

I advocate a theory of “syntactic semantics” as a way of understanding how computers can think (and how the Chinese-Room-Argument objection to the Turing Test can be overcome): (1) Semantics, considered as the study of relations between symbols and meanings, can be turned into syntax – a study of relations among symbols (including meanings) – and hence syntax (i.e., symbol manipulation) can suffice for the semantical enterprise (contra Searle). (2) Semantics, considered as the process of understanding one domain (by modeling it) in terms of another, can be viewed recursively: The base case of semantic understanding –understanding a domain in terms of itself – is “syntactic understanding.” (3) An internal (or “narrow”), first-person point of view makes an external (or “wide”), third-person point of view otiose for purposes of understanding cognition.

I survey a common theme that pervades the philosophy of computer science (and philosophy more generally): the relation of computing to the world. Are algorithms merely certain procedures entirely characterizable in an “indigenous,” “internal,’ “intrinsic,” “local,” “narrow,” “syntactic” (more generally: “intra-system”), purely-Turing-machine language? Or must algorithms interact with the real world, having a purpose that is expressible only in a language with an “external,” “extrinsic,” “global,” “wide,” “inherited” (more generally: “extra” or “inter-“system) semantics?

In their Why Machines Will Never Rule the World, Landgrebe and Smith (2023) argue that it is impossible for artificial general intelligence (AGI) to succeed, on the grounds that it is impossible to perfectly model or emulate the “complex” “human neurocognitive system”. However, they do not show that it is logically impossible; they only show that it is practically impossible using current mathematical techniques. Nor do they prove that there could not be any other kinds of theories than those in current use. Even if perfect theories were impossible or unlikely, perfection may not be needed and may even be unhelpful.

It is a matter of fact—and has been so for a considerable amount of time—that philosophy is taught at the pre—college level. However, to teach philosophy at that (or at any) level is one thing; to teach it well is quite another. Fortunately, it can be taught well, as a host of successful experiences and programs have shown. But in what ways can it be taught? Are there differences in the ways in which it can or should be taught at the pre-college level from the ways in which it is taught in college? Are there differences in the ways in which it can or should be taught at the elementary-school level from ways in which it can or should be taught at the secondary-school level? There are other questions, of a similar nature, that the beginning college-level teacher of philosophy might ask: “I have never taught Introduction to Philosophy before; how should I go about it?” And there is a further question: Should it be taught at all? This question can, of course, be raised at any educational level, but it is especially acute at the elementary level.

This essay presents a philosophical and computational theory of the representation of de re, de dicto, nested, and quasi-indexical belief reports expressed in natural language. The propositional Semantic Network Processing System (SNePS) is used for representing and reasoning about these reports. In particular, quasi-indicators (indexical expressions occurring in intentional contexts and representing uses of indicators by another speaker) pose problems for natural-language representation and reasoning systems, because--unlike pure indicators--they cannot be replaced by coreferential NPs without changing the meaning of the embedding sentence. Therefore, the referent of the quasi-indicator must be represented in such a way that no invalid coreferential claims are entailed. The importance of quasi-indicators is discussed, and it is shown that all four of the above categories of belief reports can be handled by a single representational technique using belief spaces containing intensional entities. Inference rules and belief-revision techniques for the system are also examined.

SNePS, the Semantic Network Processing System 45, 54], has been designed to be a system for representing the beliefs of a natural-language-using intelligent system (a \cognitive agent"). It has always been the intention that a SNePS-based \knowledge base" would ultimatelybe built, not by a programmeror knowledge engineer entering representations of knowledge in some formallanguage or data entry system, but by a human informing it using a natural language (NL) (generally supposed to be English), or by the system reading books or articles that had been prepared for human readers. Because of this motivation, the criteria for the development of SNePS have included: it should be able to represent anything and everything expressible in NL; it should be able to represent generic, as well as speci c information; it should be able to use the generic and the speci c information to reason and infer information implied by what it has been told; it cannot count on any particular order among the pieces of information it is given; it must continue to act reasonably even if the information it is given includes circular de nitions, recursive rules, and inconsistent information.

This essay presents and defends a triage theory of grading: An item to be graded should get full credit if and only if it is clearly or substantially correct, minimal credit if and only if it is clearly or substantially incorrect, and partial credit if and only if it is neither of the above; no other (intermediate) grades should be given. Details on how to implement this are provided, and further issues in the philosophy of grading (reasons for and against grading, grading on a curve, and the subjectivity of grading) are discussed

I advocate a theory of syntactic semantics as a way of understanding how computers can think (and how the Chinese-Room-Argument objection to the Turing Test can be overcome): (1) Semantics, considered as the study of relations between symbols and meanings, can be turned into syntax – a study of relations among symbols (including meanings) – and hence syntax (i.e., symbol manipulation) can suffice for the semantical enterprise (contra Searle). (2) Semantics, considered as the process of understanding one domain (by modeling it) in terms of another, can be viewed recursively: The base case of semantic understanding –understanding a domain in terms of itself – is syntactic understanding. (3) An internal (or narrow ), first-person point of view makes an external (or wide ), third-person point of view otiose for purposes of understanding cognition

“Contextual” vocabulary acquisition is the active, deliberate acquisition of a meaning for a word in a text by reasoning from textual clues and prior knowledge, including language knowledge and hypotheses developed from prior encounters with the word, but without external sources of help such as dictionaries or people. But what is “context”? Is it just the surrounding text? Does it include the reader’s background knowledge? I argue that the appropriate context for contextual vocabulary acquisition is the reader’s “internalization” of the text “integrated” into the reader’s “prior” knowledge via belief revision.