1,794 research outputs found
Extending Dynamic Doxastic Logic: Accommodating Iterated Beliefs And Ramsey Conditionals Within DDL
In this paper we distinguish between various kinds of doxastic theories. One distinction is between informal and formal doxastic theories. AGM-type theories of belief change are of the former kind, while Hintikkaās logic of knowledge and belief is of the latter. Then we distinguish between static theories that study the unchanging beliefs of a certain agent and dynamic theories that investigate not only the constraints that can reasonably be imposed on the doxastic states of a rational agent but also rationality constraints on the changes of doxastic state that may occur in such agents. An additional distinction is that between non-introspective theories and introspective ones. Non-introspective theories investigate agents that have opinions about the external world but no higher-order opinions about their own doxasticnstates. Standard AGM-type theories as well as the currently existing versions of Segerbergās dynamic doxastic logic (DDL) are non-introspective. Hintikka-style doxastic logic is of course introspective but it is a static theory. Thus, the challenge remains to devise doxastic theories that are both dynamic and introspective. We outline the semantics for truly introspective dynamic doxastic logic, i.e., a dynamic doxastic logic that allows us to describe agents who have both the ability to form higher-order beliefs and to reflect upon and change their minds about their own (higher-order) beliefs. This extension of DDL demands that we give up the Preservation condition on revision. We make some suggestions as to how such a non-preservative revision operation can be constructed. We also consider extending DDL with conditionals satisfying the Ramsey test and show that GƤrdenforsā well-known impossibility result applies to such a framework. Also in this case, Preservation has to be given up
The Doxastic Interpretation of Team Semantics
We advance a doxastic interpretation for many of the logical connectives
considered in Dependence Logic and in its extensions, and we argue that Team
Semantics is a natural framework for reasoning about beliefs and belief
updates
Responding to the Religious Reasons of Others: Resonance and Non-Reducitve Religious Pluralism
Call a belief ānon-negotiableā if one cannot abandon the belief without the abandonment of oneās religious perspective. Although non-negotiable beliefs can logically exclude other perspectives, a non-reductive approach to religious pluralism can help to create a space within which the non- negotiable beliefs of others that contradict oneās own non-negotiable beliefs can be appreciated and understood as playing a justificatory role for the other. The appreciation of these beliefs through cognitive resonance plays a crucial role to enable the understanding of those who hold other perspectives. epistemological and spiritual consequences of this claim are explored
Epistemic Teleology: Synchronic and Diachronic
According to a widely held view of the matter, whenever we assess beliefs as ārationalā or ājustifiedā, we are making normative judgements about those beliefs. In this discussion, I shall simply assume, for the sake of argument, that this view is correct. My goal here is to explore a particular approach to understanding the basic principles that explain which of these normative judgements are true. Specifically, this approach is based on the assumption that all such normative principles are grounded in facts about values, and the normative principles that apply to beliefs in particular are grounded in facts about alethic valueāāa kind of value that is exemplified by believing what is true and not believing what is false. In this chapter, I shall explain what I regard as the best way of interpreting this approach. In doing so, I shall also show how this interpretation can solve some problems that have recently been raised for approaches of this kind by Selim Berker, Jennifer Carr, Michael Caie, and Hilary Greaves
Bisimulation and expressivity for conditional belief, degrees of belief, and safe belief
Plausibility models are Kripke models that agents use to reason about
knowledge and belief, both of themselves and of each other. Such models are
used to interpret the notions of conditional belief, degrees of belief, and
safe belief. The logic of conditional belief contains that modality and also
the knowledge modality, and similarly for the logic of degrees of belief and
the logic of safe belief. With respect to these logics, plausibility models may
contain too much information. A proper notion of bisimulation is required that
characterises them. We define that notion of bisimulation and prove the
required characterisations: on the class of image-finite and preimage-finite
models (with respect to the plausibility relation), two pointed Kripke models
are modally equivalent in either of the three logics, if and only if they are
bisimilar. As a result, the information content of such a model can be
similarly expressed in the logic of conditional belief, or the logic of degrees
of belief, or that of safe belief. This, we found a surprising result. Still,
that does not mean that the logics are equally expressive: the logics of
conditional and degrees of belief are incomparable, the logics of degrees of
belief and safe belief are incomparable, while the logic of safe belief is more
expressive than the logic of conditional belief. In view of the result on
bisimulation characterisation, this is an equally surprising result. We hope
our insights may contribute to the growing community of formal epistemology and
on the relation between qualitative and quantitative modelling
Belief change in branching time: AGM-consistency and iterated revision
We study belief change branching-time structures. First, we identify a property of branching-time frames that is equivalent to AGM-consistency, which is defined as follows. A frame is AGM-consistent if the partial belief revision function associated with an arbitrary state-instant pair and an arbitrary model based on that frame can be extended to a full belief revision function that satisfies the AGM postulates. Second, we provide a set of modal axioms that characterize the class of AGM-consistent frames within the modal logic introduced in [Bonanno, Axiomatic characterization of the AGM theory of belief revision in a temporal logic, Artificial Intelligence, 2007]. Third, we introduce a generalization of AGM belief revision functions that allows a clear statement of principles of iterated belief revision and discuss iterated revision both semantically and syntactically.iterated belief revision, branching time, information, belief, modal logic, AGM belief revision
Awareness and equilibrium
There has been a recent surge of interest among economists in developing models of doxastic states that can account for some aspects of human cognitive limitations that are ignored by standard formal models, such as awareness. Epistemologists purport to have a principled reason for ignoring the question of awareness: under the equilibrium conception of doxastic states they favour, a doxastic state comprises the doxastic commitments an agent would recognise were he fully aware, so the question of awareness plays no role. The objective of this paper is to scrutinize this argument.Bounded rationality; awareness; doxastic states; cognitive equilibrium; belief change; formal epistemology.
- ā¦