Contração Seletiva: um modelo hiperintensional para mudança de crenças
Abstract
AGM belief revision theory has proven to be a fruitful approach to the study of belief change, but with little flexibility for investigating important epistemic phenomena. In particular, while beliefs are commonly accepted as hyperintensional attitudes, the AGM-influenced literature has mainly focused on intensional treatments of beliefs. In this work, we investigate hyperintensional belief change operations based on an impossible worlds semantics, showing a strong connection with well-established operations in the literature.References
Alchourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P., and Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(2):510–530.
Berto, F. (2019). Simple hyperintensional belief revision. Erkenntnis, 84(3):559–575.
Berto, F. and Hawke, P. (2021). Knowability relative to information. Mind, 130(517):1–33.
Bozdag, S. (2021). A semantics for hyperintensional belief revision based on information bases. Studia Logica, pages 1–38.
Cresswell, M. J. (1972). Intensional logics and logical truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1(1):2–15.
Cresswell, M. J. (1975). Hyperintensional logic. Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic, 34(1):25–38.
Gärdenfors, P. (1991). Belief revision and nonmonotonic logic: two sides of the same coin? Logics in AI, pages 52–54.
Hansson, S. O. (1991). Belief contraction without recovery. Studia logica, 50(2):251–260.
Hansson, S. O. and Wassermann, R. (2002). Local change. Studia Logica, 70(1):49–76.
Jago, M. (2014). The impossible: An essay on hyperintensionality. OUP Oxford.
Leitgeb, H. (2019). HYPE: A system of hyperintensional logic (with an application to semantic paradoxes). Journal of Philosophical Logic, 48(2):305–405.
Lindström, S. and Rabinowicz, W. (1999). DDL unlimited: Dynamic doxastic logic for introspective agents. Erkenntnis, 50(2):353–385.
Nolan, D. (2014). Hyperintensional metaphysics. Philosophical Studies, 171(1):149–160.
Rantala, V. (1982). Impossible worlds semantics and logical omniscience. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 35:106–115.
Souza, M. and Wassermann, R. (2021). Belief contraction in non-classical logics as hyperintensional belief change. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, volume 18, pages 588–598.
Souza, M. and Wassermann, R. (2022a). Hyperintensional models and belief change. In Intelligent Systems: 11th Brazilian Conference, BRACIS 2022, Campinas, Brazil, November 28–December 1, 2022, Proceedings, Part I, pages 429–443. Springer.
Souza, M. and Wassermann, R. (2022b). Hyperintensional partial meet contractions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.
Stalnaker, R. C. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In Ifs, pages 41–55. Springer.
Williams, M.-A. (1995). Iterated theory base change: A computational model. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial intelligence, pages 1541–1547.
Özgün, A. and Berto, F. (2020). Dynamic hyperintensional belief revision. The Review of Symbolic Logic, page 1–46.
Berto, F. (2019). Simple hyperintensional belief revision. Erkenntnis, 84(3):559–575.
Berto, F. and Hawke, P. (2021). Knowability relative to information. Mind, 130(517):1–33.
Bozdag, S. (2021). A semantics for hyperintensional belief revision based on information bases. Studia Logica, pages 1–38.
Cresswell, M. J. (1972). Intensional logics and logical truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1(1):2–15.
Cresswell, M. J. (1975). Hyperintensional logic. Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic, 34(1):25–38.
Gärdenfors, P. (1991). Belief revision and nonmonotonic logic: two sides of the same coin? Logics in AI, pages 52–54.
Hansson, S. O. (1991). Belief contraction without recovery. Studia logica, 50(2):251–260.
Hansson, S. O. and Wassermann, R. (2002). Local change. Studia Logica, 70(1):49–76.
Jago, M. (2014). The impossible: An essay on hyperintensionality. OUP Oxford.
Leitgeb, H. (2019). HYPE: A system of hyperintensional logic (with an application to semantic paradoxes). Journal of Philosophical Logic, 48(2):305–405.
Lindström, S. and Rabinowicz, W. (1999). DDL unlimited: Dynamic doxastic logic for introspective agents. Erkenntnis, 50(2):353–385.
Nolan, D. (2014). Hyperintensional metaphysics. Philosophical Studies, 171(1):149–160.
Rantala, V. (1982). Impossible worlds semantics and logical omniscience. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 35:106–115.
Souza, M. and Wassermann, R. (2021). Belief contraction in non-classical logics as hyperintensional belief change. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, volume 18, pages 588–598.
Souza, M. and Wassermann, R. (2022a). Hyperintensional models and belief change. In Intelligent Systems: 11th Brazilian Conference, BRACIS 2022, Campinas, Brazil, November 28–December 1, 2022, Proceedings, Part I, pages 429–443. Springer.
Souza, M. and Wassermann, R. (2022b). Hyperintensional partial meet contractions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.
Stalnaker, R. C. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In Ifs, pages 41–55. Springer.
Williams, M.-A. (1995). Iterated theory base change: A computational model. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial intelligence, pages 1541–1547.
Özgün, A. and Berto, F. (2020). Dynamic hyperintensional belief revision. The Review of Symbolic Logic, page 1–46.
Published
2023-08-06
How to Cite
SOUZA, Marlo.
Contração Seletiva: um modelo hiperintensional para mudança de crenças. In: BRAZILIAN WORKSHOP OF LOGIC (WBL), 4. , 2023, João Pessoa/PB.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2023
.
p. 41-48.
ISSN 2763-8731.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/wbl.2023.230564.
