Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • Next step
  • Previous step
  • Skip this slide
  • Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source
\def \ititle {Lecture 02}
 
\def \isubtitle {Joint Action}
 
\begin{center}
 
{\Large
 
\textbf{\ititle}: \isubtitle
 
}
 
 
 
\iemail %
 
\end{center}
 
 
 
\section{From Individual to Joint Action}
 
‘What events in the life of a person reveal agency; what are his [sic] deeds and his doings in contrast to mere happenings in his history; what is the mark that distinguishes his actions?
\citep[p~43]{Davidson:1971fz}
 
 
 
\section{Walking Together in the Mafia Sense}
 
Bratman offers a counterexample to something related to the Simple View \citep[see][]{Bratman:1992mi,bratman:2014_book}. Suppose that you and I each intend that we, you and I, go to New York together. But your plan is to point a gun at me and bundle me into the boot (or trunk) of your car. Then you intend that we go to New York together, but in a way that doesn't depend on my intentions. As you see things, I'm going to New York with you whether I like it or not. Does this provide the basis for an objection to the Simple View?
 
 
 
\section{Walking Together in the Tarantino Sense}
 
`each agent does not just intend that the group perform the […] joint action. Rather, each agent intends as well that the group perform this joint action in accordance with subplans (of the intentions in favor of the joint action) that mesh' \citep[p.\ 332]{Bratman:1992mi}.
 
Our plans are \emph{interconnected} just if facts about your plans feature in mine and conversely.
 
‘shared intentional [i.e.\ collective] agency consists, at bottom, in interconnected planning agency of the participants’ \citep{Bratman:2011fk}.
 
\begin{minipage}{\columnwidth}
 
\emph{Bratman’s claim}. For you and I to have a collective/shared intention that we J it is sufficient that:
 
\begin{enumerate}[label=({\arabic*}),itemsep=0pt,topsep=0pt]
 
\item `(a) I intend that we J and (b) you intend that we J;
 
\item `I intend that we J in accordance with and because of la, lb, and meshing subplans of la and lb; you intend that we J in accordance with and because of la, lb, and meshing subplans of la and lb;
 
\item `1 and 2 are common knowledge between us' \citep[View 4]{Bratman:1993je}
 
\end{enumerate}
 
\end{minipage}
 
 
 
\section{Bratman on Shared Intention}
 
Modest sociality:
‘small scale shared intentional agency in the absence of asymmetric authority relations’
\citep[p.~150]{Bratman:2009lv}
 

the continuity thesis

‘once God created individual planning agents and ... they have relevant knowledge of each other’s minds, nothing fundamentally new--conceptually, metaphysically, or normatively--needs to be added for there to be modest sociality.’

Bratman (2015, p. 8)

\citep[p.~8]{bratman:2014_book}
 
What is shared intention?
 
Functional characterisation:
 
shared intention serves to (a) coordinate activities,
(b) coordinate planning, and
(c) structure bargaining
 
‘We seek ... a construction of interconnected intentions and other related attitudes ... that would ... play the roles characteristic of shared intention.’
\citep[p.~32]{bratman:2014_book}
 
To illustrate: if we share an intention that we cook dinner, this shared intention will (iii) structure bargaining insofar as we may need to decide what to cook or how to cook it on the assumption that we are cooking it together; the shared intention will also require us to (ii) coordinate our planning by each bringing complementary ingredients and tools, and to (i) coordinate our activities by preparing the ingredients in the right order.
 

‘Our shared intention to paint together involves your intention that we paint and my intention that we paint.’

\citep[p.~12]{bratman:2014_book}
 
‘The sub-plans of the participants \emph{mesh} when it is possible that all of these sub-plans taken to­ gether be successfully executed.’ \citep[p.~53]{bratman:2014_book}
 

‘there is common knowledge among the participants of the conditions cited in this construction’

\citep[p.~58]{bratman:2014_book}
 
Why require common knowledge in the construction of shared intention? ‘in shared intention the fact of the shared intention will normally be out in the open: there will be public access to the fact of shared intention. Such public access to the shared intention will normally be involved in further thought that is characteristic of shared intention, as when we plan together how to carry out our shared intention. Since such shared planning about how to carry out our shared intention is part of the normal functioning of that shared intention, we need an element in our construction of shared intention whose functioning supports some such thinking of each about our shared intention.’ \citep[p.~57]{bratman:2014_book}
 
 
 
\section{Two Objections to Bratman}
 
‘the team intention ... is in part expressed by "We are executing a pass play." But ... no individual member of the team has this as the entire content of his intention, for no one can execute a pass play by himself.’
\citep[pp.~92--3]{Searle:1990em}
 

the own-action condition:

‘it is always true that the subject of an intention is the intended agent of the intended activity’

\citep[p.~13]{bratman:2014_book} [Note that Bratman *denies* this claim.]
 
the settle condition:
 
‘intentions . . . are the attitudes that resolve deliberative questions, thereby settling issues’
\citep[p.~32]{Velleman:1997oo}
 

A solution?:

(a) if we both do as we intend, we will paint

 

(b) our intentions that we paint are interdependent*

 
Our intentions have \emph{persistence interdependence} just if (a) each of us ‘will continue so to intend if, but only if the other continues so to intend’ and (b) ‘there is this interdepen­dence because each will know whether or not the other continues so to intend, and each will adjust to this knowledge in a way that involves responsiveness to norms of individual plan-theoretic rationality.’ \citep[p.~65]{bratman:2014_book}
 

Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)

\title {Joint Action \\ Lecture 02}
 
\maketitle
 
\section{From Individual to Joint Action}
 
\section{From Individual to Joint Action}
Provides an alternative introduction to the question around which this module is organised.
 
\section{Walking Together in the Mafia Sense}
 
\section{Walking Together in the Mafia Sense}
Does Bratman’s ‘mafia case’ provide a reason to reject the Simple View?
 
\section{Walking Together in the Tarantino Sense}
 
\section{Walking Together in the Tarantino Sense}
The Simple View, having survived the objection that it involves circularity and Bratman’s ‘mafia’ objection, now faces a yet more challenging objection. Apparently the Simple View cannot distinguish between all the contrast cases that an account of shared agency must distinguish. (Contrast cases are pairs of cases where one involves shared agency and the other does not and which are otherwise as similar as possible).
 
\section{Bratman on Shared Intention}
 
\section{Bratman on Shared Intention}
The leading, best developed account of shared intention is due to Michael Bratman. What are the main features of his account?
 
\section{Two Objections to Bratman}
 
\section{Two Objections to Bratman}
Searle and Velleman have offered objections to Bratman’s account of shared intention. (These are also objections to the Simple View.) Are Bratman’s replies successful?