In order to integrate new spatial information, intelligent agents have to revise what they belief about the arrangements of objects or about the way objects are arranged in a room. Starting point of the project is the assumption that spatial beliefs result from construction and inspection of mental models. Mental models are cognitive representations of information given in spatial descriptions.
The goal of the priority program ―New Frameworks of Rationality‖ (SPP 1516) is to overcome the long lasting lack of collaboration between psychologists and philosophers (and other disciplines, such as AI) in order to develop a new theoretical framework of human rationality. To reach this goal, the SPP seeks to answer new questions that go beyond the limitations of 20th century research on rationality.
The mediatization of space and time evolves in new ways in the “new media”, primary in computer games and the internet, but also, e.g., in films. The effects of mediatization are in philosophy as well as in media sciences noticeable.
Exclusion is a widespread thread to many people in the European Union, e.g. for migrants, youth, disabled people, and other groups. Inclusion can be achieved by increasing peoples’ multi-literacy skills; at least this is a hypothesis by the New London Group and their work about multi-literacy.
This research project focuses on wayfinding and navigation in unknown, familiar, real, and virtual environments. It is based on the fundamental question how spatial information are acquired, stored and represented in memory, how they are revised and used in certain cognitive processes.
A minimal theory of mind is “minimal” in the sense such that constraints of the world (e.g. observability or relevance) are lowered, as well as necessary conditions of agents’ (e.g. rationality standards).
Reasoning with exceptions is not only important in everyday reasoning, but also in legal reasoning. Which reasons are considered important enough in order to decide to not punish somebody who has committed an illegal act? Are there differences between laypeople and experts? To what extent does reasoning with exceptions and counterexamples in legal reasoning differ from everyday reasoning?