Collective Goals vs Shared Intentions

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

Collective Goals vs Shared Intentions

[email protected]

goal != intention

As this illustrates, some actions involving are purposive in the sense that

among all their actual and possible consequences,

there are outcomes to which they are directed

and the actions are collectively directed to this outcome

so it is not just a matter of each individual action being directed to this outcome.

In such cases we can say that the actions are clearly purposive.

Concerning any such actions, we can ask What is the relation between a purposive action and the outcome or outcomes to which it is directed?

The standard answer to this question involves intention.

An intention (1) specifies an outcome,

(2) coordinates the one or several activities which comprise the action;

and (3) coordinate these activities in a way that would normally facilitate the outcome’s occurrence.

What binds particular component actions together into larger purposive actions? It is the fact that these actions are all parts of plans involving a single intention. What singles out an actual or possible outcome as one to which the component actions are collectively directed? It is the fact that this outcome is represented by the intention.

So the intention is what binds component actions together into purposive actions and links the action taken as a whole to the outcomes to which they are directed.

But is intention the only thing that can link actions to outcomes? I will suggest that motor representations can likewise perform this role.

goal != intention

Let me first explain something about this notion of a collective goal ...

Ayesha takes a glass and holds it up while Beatrice pours prosecco; unfortunately the prosecco misses the glass and soak Zachs’s trousers.

Here are two sentences, both true:

The tiny drops fell from the bottle.

The tiny drops soaked Zach’s trousers.

The first sentence is naturally read *distributively*; that is, as specifying something that each drop did individually. Perhaps first drop one fell, then another fell.

But the second sentence is naturally read *collectively*. No one drop soaked Zach’s trousers; rather the soaking was something that the drops accomplised together.

If the sentence is true on this reading, the tiny drops' soaking Zach’s trousers is not a matter of each drop soaking Zach’s trousers.

Now consider an example involving actions and their outcomes:

Their thoughtless actions soaked Zach’s trousers. [causal]

- ambiguous

This sentence can be read in two ways, distributively or collectively. We can imagine that we are talking about a sequence of actions done over a period of time, each of which soaked Zach’s trousers. In this case the outcome, soaking Zach’s trousers, is an outcome of each action.

Alternatively we can imagine several actions which have this outcome collectively---as in our illustration where Ayesha holds a glass while Beatrice pours. In this case the outcome, soaking Zach’s trousers, is not necessarily an outcome of any of the individual actions but it is an outcome of all of them taken together. That is, it is a collective outcome.

(Here I'm ignoring complications associated with the possibility that some of the actions collectively soaked Zach’s trousers while others did so distributively.)

Note that there is a genuine ambiguity here. To see this, ask yourself how many times Zach’s trousers were soaked. On the distributive reading they were soaked at least as many times as there are actions. On the collective reading they were not necessarily soaked more than once. (On the distributive reading there are several outcomes of the same type and each action has a different token outcome of this type; on the collective reading there is a single token outcome which is the outcome of two or more actions.)

Conclusion so far: two or more actions involving multiple agents can have outcomes distributively or collectively. This is not just a matter of words; there is a difference in the relation between the actions and the outcome.

Now consider one last sentence:

The goal of their actions was to fill Zach’s glass. [teleological]

Whereas the previous sentence was causal, and so concened an actual outcome of some actions, this sentence is teleological, and so concerns an outcome to which actions are directed.

- also ambiguous

Like the previous sentence, this sentence has both distributive and collective readings. On the distributive reading, each of their actions was directed to an outcome, namely soaking Zach’s trousers. So there were as many attempts on his trousers as there are actions. On the collective reading, by contrast, it is not necessary that any of the actions considered individually was directed to this outcome; rather the actions were collectively directed to this outcome.

Conclusion so far: two or more actions involving multiple agents can be collectively directed to an outcome.

Where two or more actions are collectively directed to an outcome, we will say that this outcome is a *collective goal* of the actions. Note two things. First, this definition involves no assumptions about the intentions or other mental states of the agents. Relatedly, it is the actions rather than the agents which have a collective goal. Second, a collective goal is just an actual or possible outcome of an action.

An outcome is a _collective goal_ of two or more actions involving multiple agents if it is an outcome to which those actions are collectively directed (Butterfill, 2016).

A collective goal (df):

an outcome to which two or more agents’ actions are directed

where

this is not, or not only,

a matter of each action being directed to that outcome.

This was the question we were asking

Joint Action in Years 1-2

In the first and second years of life,

there is joint action

but it does not appear to involve planning agency

or shared intention.

Bratman’s account does not characterise

the sort of joint actions

infants perform in the first and second years of life.

How else might their joint actions be characterised?

- In terms of collective goals!

Inconsistent Triad

1. joint action fosters an understanding of minds;

2. all joint action involves shared intention; and

3. a function of shared intention is to coordinate two or more agents’ plans.

challenge

Explain the emergence of sophisticated human activities including referential communication and mindreading.

conjecture

Joint action plays a role in explaining how sophisticated human activities emerge.

objection

Joint action presupposes mindreading at the limits of human abilities.

The objection will seem unanswerable if we assume that all joint actions involve shared intention and that Bratman’s account of shared intention is correct.

But I’ve argued that the evidence suggests that children in the second and third years of life are not in the business of coordinating plans, so Bratman’s account of shared intention does not characterise the way they understand the joint activities that they participate in.

For this reason we should not accept that all joint actions involve shared intention and that Bratman’s account of shared intention is correct.

Instead, I think we can allow that there are joint actions which do not involve shared intentions but instead involve shared goals. It is these joint actions that we will need to appeal to in explaining the emergence of mindreading and referential communication.

How?

Joint action explains the emergence of referential communication.

Our next (and last) question ...

appendix

How could some agents’ actions have a collective goal?

Our actions do, or will, have a collective goal, G, because:

(i) We each expect the other(s) to perform an action directed to G.

(ii) We each expect that if G occurs, it will occur as a common effect of all of our actions.

For us to have a _shared goal_ $G$ is for $G$ to be a collective goal of our present or future actions in virtue of the facts that: #. We each expect the other(s) to perform an action directed to G. #. We each expect that if G occurs, it will occur as a common effect of all of our actions. (Compare Butterfill, 2012; Vesper, Butterfill, Knoblich, & Sebanz, 2010.)

Keyboard Shortcuts?f

Collective Goals vs Shared Intentions

Collective Goals vs Shared Intentions

[email protected]

Keyboard Shortcuts`?f`