EducationAisle
Thanks for the reply.
I'm trying to explain my point a bit here.
Peter goes to school and Peter has gone to school are 2 separate things.
Peter goes to school-->it means that Peter loves to go school in generalities.

Peter has gone to school-->it means that Peter is in school right away! Maybe, someone may argue that he is in cinema hall right now, but it is a big no-I've to be convinced that he is in school because of the sentence structure (present perfect tense)

Here is an another example:
Peter has died-->Peter is not alive right away. There is no way to be back to Peter in normal life!
So, we should not know Peter before to justify him by tense. That's it.

Well, let's take a similar example.

Peter has attended school.

Does it mean that Peter is still attending school? No.

This just means that at some point in the past, Peter attended school.

Which brings me to my initial point:).

Present perfect does not necessarily mean that the action is still underway.
_________________

EducationAisle
Nice debate!
There are three main contexts in which we use the present perfect. All of them are focused on the present time in relation to something in the past.
1. We use present perfect for something that happened in the past but has some kind of effect on the present.
2. We use the present perfect for something that happens in a time frame that continues up to now.
3. We use present perfect to talk about experiences that form part of who we are now. For example, “I have been to university” expresses the idea that now I am a person with a university education, and “I have never been to USA” expresses the idea that now I am a person who does not have the experience of going to USA.

^^ This one just resembles your experience in attending the school; That does not mean that 'Peter is still attending school.
Am I clear to you?

ok, it is heartening to know that we are making some progress here.

The way Peter has attended school does not mean that Peter is still attending school, similarly, Peter has lived in US does not necessarily mean that Peter is still in US.

This is because Peter has lived in US can definitely conform to the following scenario that you've mentioned in your post:

3. We use present perfect to talk about experiences that form part of who we are now.

My life in US is an experience that forms part of who I am now (without necessarily implying that I am still in US).
_________________

EducationAisle
But, the example of 'living in USA' is totally different.
Peter lives in USA and Peter has lived in USA are not the same thing!
Peter lives in USA--> it means Peter usually lives in USA (he does not like to live in Canada, maybe)

Peter has lived in USA-->Peter started to live in USA few minutes/hours/days/years back, but he still lives in USA.

It means no such thing. We cannot extrapolate it (even remotely) to interpret that he does not like to live in Canada, or not even that he likes to live in USA.

Simple present represents a general truth or a current fact.


Yes, or it could mean that at some point in his life, Peter lived in USA (implying that he may not be in USA anymore). The experience of living in US (even if I am not in US right now) continues to stay with me, and hence I use present perfect.
_________________

I'm not saying that 'Peter does not like to live in Canada directly'; I'm just using this hypothetical situation to enforce that 'Peter lives in USA' is just a general fact.