Dear Peter:
In your comment (10-27-03), you ask some pertinent questions. My
views regarding some of the issues which you raise may be found in the
following:
1. L.A. Zadeh, "A New Direction in AI--Toward a Computational Theory
of Perceptions," AI Magazine,Vol. 22, No. 1, 73-84, 2001.
(Downloadable: http:// www-bisc.cs.berkeley.edu/zadeh)
2. L.A. Zadeh, "Toward a Perception-B, Vol. 105, 233-264, 2002
(Downloadable:
http://www-bisc.cs.berkeley.edu/BISCProgram/Projects.htm
3. "Probability Theory and Fuzzy Logic," lecture delivered at the
Conference on the Logic of Soft Computing, University of Siena,
Italy, November 2, 2003. (Downloadable: http://
www-bisc.cs.berkeley.edu/zadeh)
Insofar as the realm of law is concerned, a basic question is: Do
bivalent logic and bivalent-logic-based probability theory provide
adequate tools for a formalization of legal reasoning? In my view, legal
reasoning is much too complex to lend itself to an analysis within the
conceptual structure of bivalent-logic and bivalent-logic-based
probability theory.
Warm regards,
Lotfi
--
Professor in the Graduate School, Computer Science Division
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720 -1776
Director, Berkeley Initiative in Soft Computing (BISC)
http://www.cs.berkeley/~zadeh
