Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!ubc-anchor!andrews
From: andrews@ubc-anchor.uucp (Jamie Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: The nature of knowledge
Message-ID: <1537@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Jul-87 13:15:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1537
Posted: Wed Jul  8 13:15:23 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 14:28:07 EDT
References: <3587e521.44e6@apollo.uucp> <680@gargoyle.UChicago.EDU> <1022@water.UUCP> <51@thirdi.UUCP> <9877@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Sender: nobody@ubc-cs.UUCP
Reply-To: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews)
Distribution: world
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 21
Keywords: knowledge, belief, truth

In article <9877@duke.cs.duke.edu> mps@duke.UUCP (Michael P. Smith) writes:
>Each of my beliefs I believe to be true, naturally.  But I do not
>"here-and-now" believe that all my beliefs are true.  Such optimism
>would be epistemically irrational.  "From my own viewpoint," not only
>have I *had* false beliefs, I surely *have* some now.  I have never
>had any false knowledge, however, nor do I now.

     So Michael feels that ( \exists X (Bel(X) & ~X) ) ...but he cannot
actually exhibit such an X, because he also feels that
( \forall X (Bel(X) -> ~Bel(~X)) ).  However, he does feel that there
is a "knows" connective, with the property that
( \forall X (Kn(X) -> X) ).  Is this a good summary?  Or are you
trying to avoid syntactic systems altogether?

     I was going to add a comment, but I realized I'm out of my depth.
Can anyone suggest a good summary paper of logics which encompass the
notion of belief?

--Jamie.
...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"What made it special, made it dangerous"