BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

John Rushby

John Rushby appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Artificial IntelligenceLogic in Computer ScienceNeurons and CognitionSoftware Engineeringeess.SYSystems and Control

Catalog footprint

What is connected

6works
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Mechanically Assisted Examination of Vacuity and Question Begging in Anselm's Ontological Argument

I use mechanized verification to examine several first- and higher-order formalizations of Anselm's Ontological Argument against the charge of begging the question. I propose three different but related criteria for a premise to beg the question in fully formal proofs and find that one or another applies to all the formalizations examined. I also show that all these formalizations entail variants that are vacuous, in the sense that they apply no interpretation to "than which there is no greater" and are therefore vulnerable to Gaunilo's refutation. My purpose is to demonstrate that mechanized verification provides an effective and reliable technique to perform these analyses; readers may decide whether the forms of question begging and vacuity so identified affect their interest in the Argument or its various formalizations. This version updates the paper that originally appeared as Chapter 13 in "Beyond Faith and Rationality: Essays on Logic, Religion and Philosophy" published by Springer to respond to criticisms by Oppenheimer and Zalta.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Inferring and Conveying Intentionality: Beyond Numerical Rewards to Logical Intentions

Shared intentionality is a critical component in developing conscious AI agents capable of collaboration, self-reflection, deliberation, and reasoning. We formulate inference of shared intentionality as an inverse reinforcement learning problem with logical reward specifications. We show how the approach can infer task descriptions from demonstrations. We also extend our approach to actively convey intentionality. We demonstrate the approach on a simple grid-world example.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

PVS Embeddings of Propositional and Quantified Modal Logic

Modal logics allow reasoning about various modes of truth: for example, what it means for something to be possibly true, or to know that something is true as opposed to merely believing it. This report describes embeddings of propositional and quantified modal logic in the PVS verification system. The resources of PVS allow this to be done in an attractive way that supports much of the standard syntax of modal logic, while providing effective automation. The report introduces and formally specifies and verifies several standard topics in modal logic such as relationships between the standard modal axioms and properties of the accessibility relation, and attributes of the Barcan Formula and its converse in both constant and varying domains.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Technology and Consciousness

We report on a series of eight workshops held in the summer of 2017 on the topic "technology and consciousness." The workshops covered many subjects but the overall goal was to assess the possibility of machine consciousness, and its potential implications. In the body of the report, we summarize most of the basic themes that were discussed: the structure and function of the brain, theories of consciousness, explicit attempts to construct conscious machines, detection and measurement of consciousness, possible emergence of a conscious technology, methods for control of such a technology and ethical considerations that might be owed to it. An appendix outlines the topics of each workshop and provides abstracts of the talks delivered. Update: Although this report was published in 2018 and the workshops it is based on were held in 2017, recent events suggest that it is worth bringing forward. In particular, in the Spring of 2022, a Google engineer claimed that LaMDA, one of their "large language models" is sentient or even conscious. This provoked a flurry of commentary in both the scientific and popular press, some of it interesting and insightful, but almost all of it ignorant of the prior consideration given to these topics and the history of research into machine consciousness. Thus, we are making a lightly refreshed version of this report available in the hope that it will provide useful background to the current debate and will enable more informed commentary. Although this material is five years old, its technical points remain valid and up to date, but we have "refreshed" it by adding a few footnotes highlighting recent developments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Assurance 2.0: A Manifesto

System assurance is confronted by significant challenges. Some of these are new, for example, autonomous systems with major functions driven by machine learning and AI, and ultra-rapid system development, while others are the familiar, persistent issues of the need for efficient, effective and timely assurance. Traditional assurance is seen as a brake on innovation and often costly and time consuming. We therefore propose a modernized framework, Assurance 2.0, as an enabler that supports innovation and continuous incremental assurance. Perhaps unexpectedly, it does so by making assurance more rigorous, with increased focus on the reasoning and evidence employed, and explicit identification of defeaters and counterevidence.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access