Basic rights are essential for our societies. All of them are equally important and have to be protected. However, there are situations in which basic rights are in conflict. For instance, what happens if a journalist takes pictures of a celebrity? The celebrity has the right to privacy and the journalist the right to freedom of press. Which basic right should be protected in this specific case? What can make such a decision rational?
Humans and artificial agents frequently must change their existing beliefs about the way how objects are arranged in space, in order to take into account a new piece of spatial information. So, how do humans revise their beliefs if a new piece of spatial information is inconsistent with earlier assumptions? When do they hold on to a belief and when do they change their mind? What are the neural correlates of belief revision in human spatial reasoning?
We use conditionals in many moments of our lives: to describe causalities, to tell people what to do, and even in law we use conditionals. In classical logic there are clear rules on how conditionals should be interpreted and understood. But how do we understand and reason with conditionals in our daily lives? How do our prior knowledge, emotions, preferences, and beliefs affect our reasoning? Do we take into account how conditionals are phrased?
The idea that humans are "rational creatures" has begun to totter over the past few years. It is not the case that humans fail at solving problems (in everyday life and in the psychological lab). Quite to the contrary: the capacity to solve the most complicated problems and to reason about the most complex states of affairs is compelling - otherwise, human mankind would not have become what it is today.