Solving Crimes using Referent Tracking Relations: The Killing Problem

Discovery Seminar 175555/UE 141 M – Fall 2008Solving Crimes using Referent Tracking Relations and the killing problem--- the students’ views ---October 22, 2008 Werner CEUSTERS Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics and Life Sciences Ontology Research Group University at Buffalo, NY, USA

The puzzle • On September 9th, 1935, Carl Austin Weiss shot Senator Huey Long in the Louisiana State Capitol with a .35 calibre pistol. Long died from this wound thirty hours later on September 10th. Weiss, on the other hand, received between thirty-two and sixty .44 and .45 calibre hollow point bullets from Long's agitated bodyguards and died immediately. Sorensen, R., 1985, "Self-Deception and Scattered Events", Mind, 94: 64-69. • Questions: • Did Weiss kill Senator Long ? • If so, when did he kill him ?

Bodyguards’shooting of Weiss Students found 4 distinct times for the ‘killing’of Long time Carl Weiss’ living Weiss’ shooting of Long Long’s pathological body reactions Weiss’s path. body reactions Senator Long’s living k1 k3 k2 k4

Primitive instance-level relationships • c instance_of C at t- a primitive relation between a continuant instance and a class which it instantiates at a specific time • p instance_of P- a primitive relation between a process instance and a class which it instantiates holding independently of time • c part_of c1 at t- a primitive relation between two continuant instances and a time at which the one is part of the other • p part_of p1, r part_of r1 - a primitive relation of parthood, holding independently of time, either between process instances (one a subprocess of the other), or between spatial regions (one a subregion of the other) • c located_in r at t- a primitive relation between a continuant instance, a spatial region which it occupies, and a time • r adjacent_to r1 - a primitive relation of proximity between two disjoint continuants • t earlier t1 - a primitive relation between two times • c derives_from c1 - a primitive relation involving two distinct material continuants c and c1 • p has_participant c at t- a primitive relation between a process, a continuant, and a time • p has_agent c at t- a primitive relation between a process, a continuant and a time at which the continuant is causally active in the process

S12 • K1 and K2 are related through "p has participant c at t" because the process of the shooting of Long starts the continuant of Long's body which is having its pathological body reactions at the time of the end of the shooting. • K1 and K3 are related through "c derives from c1" because the shooting of Long is the c1 where his bodily reactions, c, derive from the shooting. • K1 and K4 are related through "c derives from c1" because the death of Long, c, derives from the shooting of Long by Weiss, c1. • K2 and K3 are related through "r adjacent to r1" because Weiss was shot in close proximity to where he was shooting Long. • K3 and K4 are related through "c located in r at t" because Long's body reactions are located in the same spatial region as when he was pronounced dead.

K1 and K2 are related through "p has participant c at t" because the process of the shooting of Long starts the continuant of Long's body which is having its pathological body reactions at the time of the end of the shooting. What is wrong ? K1 and K2 are occurrents, and participation holds between occurrent and continuant S12

K1 and K3 are related through "c derives from c1" because the shooting of Long is the c1 where his bodily reactions, c, derive from the shooting. What is wrong? Derives-from holds between continuants, not occurrents S12

K1 and K4 are related through "c derives from c1" because the death of Long, c, derives from the shooting of Long by Weiss, c1. What is wrong? Derives-from holds between continuants, not occurrents S12

K2 and K3 are related through "r adjacent to r1" because Weiss was shot in close proximity to where he was shooting Long. What is wrong? Adjacent-to holds between regions, not occurrents S12

K3 and K4 are related through "c located in r at t" because Long's body reactions are located in the same spatial region as when he was pronounced dead. What is wrong? Long’s body reactions are occurrents, and located-in holds only for continuants S12

S12 • Good elements in S12’s work: • Right method of analysis was used, but wrong conclusions • Unsatisfactory elements: • Only partial indication, if any at all, for what K1, K2, etc are • Not distinguishing between continuants and occurrents when needed 40%

Bodyguards’shooting of Weiss Right or wrong ? time Carl Weiss’ living Weiss’ shooting of Long Long’s pathological body reactions Weiss’s path. body reactions Senator Long’s living k1 k3 k2 k4 K1: Killing occurs at the point when the person actually dies, and the physical processes that warrant death cease to exist

Bodyguards’shooting of Weiss Right or wrong ? time Carl Weiss’ living Weiss’ shooting of Long Long’s pathological body reactions Weiss’s path. body reactions Senator Long’s living k1 k3 k2 k4 K2: Killing is initiated at point of attack and is completed when victim dies

Bodyguards’shooting of Weiss Right or wrong ? time Carl Weiss’ living Weiss’ shooting of Long Long’s pathological body reactions Weiss’s path. body reactions Senator Long’s living k1 k3 k2 k4 K3: Killing is initiated and completed when bullets strike the body, because the transcendental effects of the assault ultimately lead to death

Bodyguards’shooting of Weiss Right or wrong ? time Carl Weiss’ living Weiss’ shooting of Long Long’s pathological body reactions Weiss’s path. body reactions Senator Long’s living k1 k3 k2 k4 K4: The "killing" is the actual point of assault, this is the literal definition that presents killing as an act, a verb

S8 • K1: Killing occurs at the point when the person actually dies, and the physical processes that warrant death cease to exist • K2: Killing is initiated at point of attack and is completed when victim dies • K3: Killing is initiated and completed when bullets strike the body, because the transcendental effects of the assault ultimately lead to death • K4: The "killing" is the actual point of assault, this is the literal definition that presents killing as an act, a verb • RELATIONSHIPS: • K1/K2: c part of c1 at t, p part of p1 r part of r1, • K1/K3: c part of c1 at t, pa part of p1 r part of r1, p has participant c at t • K1/K4: there are no recognizable relationships for me, K1 actually constitutes that someone died, K4 is a literal definition denoting a process • K2/K3: c is an instance of C at t, p instance of P, c located in r at t (?) I feel that K3 can almost be placed seamlessly into • K2, but whether or not the last relationship is acceptable is questionable • K2/K4: c instance of C at t, p has agent c at t • K3/K4: same as previous relationships What does this mean ? 0%

S14 • K1 and K2 - c part of c1 at tK3 and K4 - c part of c1 at tK2 and K3 - c part of c1 at tK2 and K4 - p part of p1, r part of r1 Two major problems. Which one ?

S14 • K1 and K2 - c part of c1 at tK3 and K4 - c part of c1 at tK2 and K3 - c part of c1 at tK2 and K4 - p part of p1, r part of r1 How do c and c1 relate to K1 and K2?

S14 • K1 and K2 - c part of c1 at tK3 and K4 - c part of c1 at tK2 and K3 - c part of c1 at tK2 and K4 - p part of p1, r part of r1 • For the first two, relationships are stated to be between continuants • For the second one, relationship is stated to be for process • Both cannot be true at the same time !

S14 • K1 and K2 - c part of c1 at tK3 and K4 - c part of c1 at tK2 and K3 - c part of c1 at tK2 and K4 - p part of p1, r part of r1 0%

S1 • K1-> K2= c instance of C at t • K1-> K3= t earlier t1 • K1-> K4= p instance of P • K2-> K3= c part of c1 at t • K2-> K4= p part of p1, r part of r1 • K3-> K4= c part of c1 at t Three major problems. Which one ?

S1 • K1-> K2= c instance of C at t • K1-> K3= t earlier t1 • K1-> K4= p instance of P • K2-> K3= c part of c1 at t • K2-> K4= p part of p1, r part of r1 • K3-> K4= c part of c1 at t No relationship given between c/p/r and k1, k2, …

S1 • K1-> K2= c instance of C at t • K1-> K3= t earlier t1 • K1-> K4= p instance of P • K2-> K3= c part of c1 at t • K2-> K4= p part of p1, r part of r1 • K3-> K4= c part of c1 at t All versions of killings are particulars !

S1 • K1-> K2= c instance of C at t • K1-> K3= t earlier t1 • K1-> K4= p instance of P • K2-> K3= c part of c1 at t • K2-> K4= p part of p1, r part of r1 • K3-> K4= c part of c1 at t There are no continuants that can change into occurrents, nor time periods !

S1 • K1-> K2= c instance of C at t • K1-> K3= t earlier t1 • K1-> K4= p instance of P • K2-> K3= c part of c1 at t • K2-> K4= p part of p1, r part of r1 • K3-> K4= c part of c1 at t 0%

S7 • I feel like I missed processes but I cannot figure out what they are. I tried as hard as I could and this is all I could come up with: • K1 earlier than K2 • K1 earlier than K3 • K1 earlier than K4 • K2 earlier than K3 • K2 earlier than K4 • K3 earlier than K4 • K3derives from K2 • K4derives from K3 • K2derives from K1 • K1 instance of K2 • K3 instance of K4 Major problems. Which one ?

S7 • I feel like I missed processes but I cannot figure out what they are. I tried as hard as I could and this is all I could come up with: • K1 earlier than K2 • K1 earlier than K3 • K1 earlier than K4 • K2 earlier than K3 • K2 earlier than K4 • K3 earlier than K4 • K3derives from K2 • K4derives from K3 • K2derives from K1 • K1 instance of K2 • K3 instance of K4 No indication what the letters stand for

S7 • I feel like I missed processes but I cannot figure out what they are. I tried as hard as I could and this is all I could come up with: • K1 earlier than K2 • K1 earlier than K3 • K1 earlier than K4 • K2 earlier than K3 • K2 earlier than K4 • K3 earlier than K4 • K3derives from K2 • K4derives from K3 • K2derives from K1 • K1 instance of K2 • K3 instance of K4 • Can’t be true at the same time: • Earlier holds only for time periods, • derives from only for continuants

S7 • I feel like I missed processes but I cannot figure out what they are. I tried as hard as I could and this is all I could come up with: • K1 earlier than K2 • K1 earlier than K3 • K1 earlier than K4 • K2 earlier than K3 • K2 earlier than K4 • K3 earlier than K4 • K3derives from K2 • K4derives from K3 • K2derives from K1 • K1 instance of K2 • K3 instance of K4 All four interpretations of killings are particulars, so one cannot instantiate the other

S7 • I feel like I missed processes but I cannot figure out what they are. I tried as hard as I could and this is all I could come up with: • K1 earlier than K2 • K1 earlier than K3 • K1 earlier than K4 • K2 earlier than K3 • K2 earlier than K4 • K3 earlier than K4 • K3derives from K2 • K4derives from K3 • K2derives from K1 • K1 instance of K2 • K3 instance of K4 0%

S11 • K1- Process of Weiss shooting Long • p instance of P (This is independent of time, after it is done he still shot Long) • K2- Bullets entering Long • c instance of C at t (Long is a continuant and at a specific time the bullets enter his body) • K3- Long’s pathological body reactions • p instance of P (This is another concurrent that unfolds in time. His pathological body reactions existed in phases.) • K4- End of Long’s pathological body reactions; Long’s death • c part of c1 at t (this is because at a certain time Long died he went from an concurrent, his life to a continuant his body. This transformation occurred at a specific time) There are a few good things here, but primarily problems. What is good and bad ?

S11 • K1- Process of Weiss shooting Long • p instance of P (This is independent of time, after it is done he still shot Long) • K2- Bullets entering Long • c instance of C at t (Long is a continuant and at a specific time the bullets enter his body) • K3- Long’s pathological body reactions • p instance of P (This is another occurrent that unfolds in time. His pathological body reactions existed in phases.) • K4- End of Long’s pathological body reactions; Long’s death • c part of c1 at t (this is because at a certain time Long died he went from an occurrent, his life to a continuant his body. This transformation occurred at a specific time) The 4 killings are not related to each other

S11 • K1- Process of Weiss shooting Long • p instance of P (This is independent of time, after it is done he still shot Long) • K2- Bullets entering Long • c instance of C at t (Long is a continuant and at a specific time the bullets enter his body) • K3- Long’s pathological body reactions • p instance of P (This is another occurrent that unfolds in time. His pathological body reactions existed in phases.) • K4- End of Long’s pathological body reactions; Long’s death • c part of c1 at t (this is because at a certain time Long died he went from an occurrent, his life to a continuant his body. This transformation occurred at a specific time) What does p and P stand for ? (similar for other answers)

S11 • K1- Process of Weiss shooting Long • p instance of P (This is independent of time, after it is done he still shot Long) • K2- Bullets entering Long • c instance of C at t (Long is a continuant and at a specific time the bullets enter his body) • K3- Long’s pathological body reactions • p instance of P (This is another occurrent that unfolds in time. His pathological body reactions existed in phases.) • K4- End of Long’s pathological body reactions; Long’s death • c part of c1 at t (this is because at a certain time Long died he went from an occurrent, his life to a continuant his body. This transformation occurred at a specific time) Nothing can transform from an occurrent into a continuant

S11 • K1- Process of Weiss shooting Long • p instance of P (This is independent of time, after it is done he still shot Long) • K2- Bullets entering Long • c instance of C at t (Long is a continuant and at a specific time the bullets enter his body) • K3- Long’s pathological body reactions • p instance of P (This is another occurrent that unfolds in time. His pathological body reactions existed in phases.) • K4- End of Long’s pathological body reactions; Long’s death • c part of c1 at t (this is because at a certain time Long died he went from an occurrent, his life to a continuant his body. This transformation occurred at a specific time) 10%

S5 • More good things than bad things (making abstraction of the fact that ‘c’ rather than ‘p’ is used for occurrents)

S5 • They are not part of each other, but rather overlap

S5 • If something derives from something else, the latter doesn’t exist anymore, so can’t be in a parthood relation • Derives is only applicable to continuants, not occurrents

S5 60%

S2 90%

S2 3 occurrences of 1 ‘serious’ type of mistake. Which one? 90%

Homework for in two weeks • No lecture next week (Oct 29), but nevertheless come to class to start making the homework in group. • One student will collect signatures • Task: • identify ALL the particulars in S2’s four definitions of killing, and plot them on the graph (third slide of this presentation) • Indicate for each whether it is an occurrent or continuant • Give numbers to time periods (t1, t2, t3, …) and use these to write all relationships that hold • Submit by email before Monday Nov 3, 2008, 10 PM

Example • S2’s killing1: “killing is an action that an individual attempts to extinguish life of another, consequences disregarded.” • Particulars: • p1: That killing of Long • c1: Long • c2: Weiss • r1: the region occupied by Long during p1 • t1: the time period during which p1 existed • …

Example (continued) • Universals: • U1: the sort of killing as defined by student2 in S1 • U2: person • … • Relations: • c1 instance-of U2 at t1 • c2 instance-of U2 at t1 • p1 has-agent c2 at t1 • p2 has-participant c1 at t1 • p1 instance-of U1 • …

Example (continued) • Complete and do the same for the three other definitions • RE-USE the same symbols for the same entities ! • Thus in ALL relationships in which Long is involved, the symbol ‘c1’ should be used for Long.

Solving Crimes using Referent Tracking Relations: The Killing Problem