00100	JMC 20 MARCH ON ARTHUR'S 7 MARCH SPYING A CATEGORY MISTAKE
00200	
00300		I am not sure that Arthur's criticism of 7 March  applies  to
00400	anything I said on 5 March.  It seems to be more applicable to things
00500	in "Some philosophical problems ..." or some things I  have  said  in
00600	class.  However, I shall defend my usage not being quite sure if that
00700	is what is being attacked.
00800	
00900		Consider                   expressions                   like
01000	"value(Mike,"telephone-number(Bill)",S0)".     This   expression   is
01100	intended to be used by the program to  denote  what  Mike  thinks  in
01200	situation  S0  that Bill's telephone number is.  The program will use
01300	such expressions in sentences like the following:
01400	
01500		1. value(Mike,"telepone-number(Bill)",result(...,S0)) = "321-2175"
01600	
01700		2. value(Mike,"telephone-number(Bill)",S1) ≠ telephone-number(Bill)
01800	
01900		3. (∀ p)(∀ q)(∀ s)(... ⊃ value(p,subst(name(q),"x",
02000	"telephone-number(x)"),result(p,look-up-in-phone-book(name(q),s)))
02100			= telephone-number(q)
02200	
02300		With  the aid of such sentences, a suitable reasoning program
02400	may be able to decide how to get people to do  things  or  to  reason
02500	about  whether  other  people  can get people to do things by calling
02600	them.
02700	
02800		Would  writing  such  a  program commit us to a point of view
02900	about intensional objects?  I think not unless we  claimed  that  the
03000	method  was  useful  in all cases and also settled the matter of "the
03100	possible bald man in the door".  Maybe we will get  to  the  possible
03200	bald  man  in  the door, but my present ideas are limited to cases in
03300	which an axiom like
03400	
03500		(∀ p)(∀ q)(∀ s)(∀ y)(value(p,subst(name(q),
03600	"x","telephone-number(x)"),s) = y
03700			⊃
03800	y = "undefined" ∨ [y is a string of 7 digits with a dash
03900	after the third possibly preceded by an area code, etc.])
04000	
04100	does not produce a contradiction.
04200	
04300		I  am  not  sure what you mean by having the (TH)assertion in
04400	one's world model means to you.  If you mean that the program has  it
04500	in  its  own world model, that is very simple.  There is no need even
04600	for "value".  "telephone(Mike)  =  "321-2175""  will  do  fine.   For
04700	expressing general facts about when a course of action will result in
04800	someone not knowing someone else's telephone number, I don't see that
04900	the PLANNER formalism suggests a particular solution.
05000	
05100		To  summarize:  the  value(p,e,s) formalism is proposed as an
05200	approach to solving a limited class of  problems.   Whether  it  will
05300	solve them remains to be seen.  It would be nice to have a definition
05400	that would give us the precise  way  to  use  such  phrases  as  "the
05500	possible  bald man in the doorway" but that doesn't seem to be in the
05600	cards.