Notion Of Attack Research Articles

Deductive and abductive argumentation based on information graphs

In this paper, we propose an argumentation formalism that allows for both deductive and abductive argumentation, where ‘deduction’ is used as an umbrella term for both defeasible and strict ‘forward’ inference. Our formalism is based on an extended version of our previously proposed information graph (IG) formalism, which provides a precise account of the interplay between deductive and abductive inference and causal and evidential information. In the current version, we consider additional types of information such as abstractions which allow domain experts to be more expressive in stating their knowledge, where we identify and impose constraints on the types of inferences that may be performed with the different types of information. A new notion of attack is defined that captures a crucial aspect of abductive reasoning, namely that of competition between abductively inferred alternative explanations. Our argumentation formalism generates an abstract argumentation framework and thus allows arguments to be formally evaluated. We prove that instantiations of our argumentation formalism satisfy key rationality postulates.

The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court: Turning international humanitarian law into a two-headed snake?

AbstractThe International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court are two very different entities that simultaneously apply international humanitarian law but do so after their own perspectives. This article proposes a cautious yet critical approach to some of their divergent interpretations (conflict classification, the difference between direct and active participation in hostilities, intra-party sexual and gender-based violence, and the notion of attack) and examines how the broader legal system copes with these points of divergence. The analysis considers the institutional characteristics of these two organizations and the pluralistic nature of international humanitarian law as well as its dynamic rapport with international criminal law in order to highlight the versatility needed to face the challenges posed by contemporary armed conflicts.

A characterization of types of support between structured arguments and their relationship with support in abstract argumentation

Argumentation is an important approach in artificial intelligence and multiagent systems, providing a basis for single agents to make rational decisions, and for groups of agents to reach agreements, as well as a mechanism to underpin a wide range of agent interactions. In such work, a crucial role is played by the notion of attack between arguments, and the notion of attack is well-studied. There is, for example, a range of different approaches to identifying which of a set of arguments should be accepted given the attacks between them. Less well studied is the notion of support between arguments, yet the idea that one argument may support another is very intuitive and seems particularly relevant in the area of decision-making where decision options may have multiple arguments for and against them. In the last decade, the study of support in argumentation has regained attention among researchers, but most approaches address support in the context of abstract argumentation where the elements from which arguments are composed are ignored. In contrast, this paper studies the notion of support between arguments in the context of structured argumentation systems where the elements from which arguments are composed play a crucial role. Different forms of support are presented, each of which takes into account the structure of arguments; and the relationships between these forms of support are studied. Then, the paper investigates whether there is a correspondence between the structured and abstract forms of support, and determines whether the abstract formalisms may be instantiated using concrete forms of support in terms of structured arguments. The conclusion is that support in structured argumentation does not mesh well with support in abstract argumentation, and this suggests that more work is required to develop forms of support in abstract argumentation that model what happens in structured argumentation.

‘Coscienza spietata’/Superio arcaico: attacco al legame e autocastrazione come funzioni del pensiero e del linguaggio di Clemente Rebora

‘Ruthless conscience’ / Archaic Superego Attack on linking and self-castration as psychic functions underpinning Rebora’s thought and language Making reference to the classic Freudian theory of castration, this article will first set out to examine the motifs (quite common in Rebora) of self-punishment and atonement, alongside the sense of pleasure or relief that accompanies them. It will then proceed to use Bion’s radical development of the Freudian notion of attack on the Oedipal couple to show how a number of representational and performative elements in Rebora’s discourse can all be understood as epiphenomena of a process called “attack on linking” – a psychic process which damages and, in extreme cases, altogether destroys the ability to relate to one’s external and internal reality, as well as to produce thoughts infused with a sense of personal meaning. The aforementioned representational and performative elements include: representations of the body (which Rebora attacked and disparaged); representations of emotions and thought processes (both perceived to engender a state of “permanent emergency”); well-known and much commented on “stylistic” traits such as linguistic obscurity and a strong tendency to abstractness.

Attacks on Linking or a Drive to Communicate? Tolerating the Paradox

The notion of attacks on linking, as described by Bion, may depict a patient’s drive to communicate the internalization of a destructive relationship between a primary object and an infant. This may be enacted between patient and analyst in the here and now of the analysis, whereby fragmentation and numbing of thinking may point to a primitive catastrophe relived in the psychoanalytic setting. The patient’s material may seem incoherent, but incoherence might be the communication the patient is unconsciously trying to convey. Thus, the notion of attacks on linking depicts a paradoxical, caesural experience in which the attack on linking is itself a link.

Semiotic emergent framework to address the reality of cyberterrorism

The following paper examines concepts associated with cyberterrorism. Most of the current attention given terrorism involves both probability and consequences related to the physical world. Focuses in “what-if” scenarios involve threats to the economy and the population from an enemy that has all the discretion in selecting the battlefield. But what if the target of terrorism activity is a virtual world? The economic and communications infrastructure of many countries depend on cyber thoroughfares at least as much as they do those of concrete or steel. Yet little attention is given to the notion of attacks that can occur in cyberspace. This discussion examines what cyberterrorism means, the forms it may take and how it may occur, and safeguards that should be considered in preparation for cyber warfare. To this end, we draw from current theories involving semiotics, emergence, and complexity to ground our work.