- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 18:16:12 -0500
- To: "Emery, Pat" <pemery@grci.com>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>Pat hayes wrote: > >> 'Jon says "The sky is blue"' > >> 'I believe Jon' > >>=> > >> 'I believe (the sky is blue)' > > >Careful, those are two different senses of 'believe'. You don't > >believe Jon is TRUE, right? You believe that what he SAYS is true. > >Write that out and your example looks more, er, logical: > > > >Says(Jon, (the sky is blue)) > >Says(Jon, ?p) implies ?p. > >=> > >(the sky is blue) > >Shouldn't it be something more like: > >Says(Jon, (the sky is blue)) >Says(Jon ?p) implies Believe(I, ?p)) >=> >Believe(I, (the sky is blue)) Yes, that would more accurately transcribe the example. I tend to assume that since "I" means the one who is manipulating the beliefs, as it were, that Believe(I, ?p) is pretty much interderivable with plain ?p. After all, if ?p is something I am asserting, then presumably I believe that ?p, and then I would have to be pretty cynical about myself not to be willing to conclude from this that Believe(I, ?p); and contrariwise if I believe that Believe(I,?p), (and am not just trying to lie to my God, say), then I ought to be willing to conclude ?p. I guess there might a kind of existential state of self-doubt that would block this inference, but I do not want to make neurotic web software agents just yet. Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 19:16:14 UTC