Keyboard Shortcuts?f

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

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

 

Conclusion

conclusion

In conclusion, ...

To understand why people act, individually and jointly.

Philosophical, psychological and formal answers are—or appear—both mutually dependent and inconsistent.

This is an obstacle to full understanding
but one that you can overcome.

So here I am in conclusion. Well, I kind of already given you the conclusion. 90 second version in one more time. So Jesper and Billy, for example, you missed the second version version earlier, so you know not all is lost. You get it.
We're interested in this problem. We want to understand why people act individually and jointly. In order to. Do that, we need to draw not just on philosophy, but also on some work in psychology and neuroscience and some formal theories from economics. Initially that looks super promising because those theories seem to have complementary gaps and therefore be mutually dependent. But actually, when you look closely, those theories also appear to be inconsistent. And that's what gives rise to these integration questions. The integration questions are really two. [1] Is it the case that these theories are genuinely inconsistent? [2] And if they are, how do you revise them?
I want to say in many cases the inconsistencies are real. And that's an obstacle to our understanding why people act individually and jointly. But it's also an obstacle that you can overcome. And that's what I'm hoping that you will do in these marvellous essays, which I am looking forward to reading in May. Thank you very much. I'll see you in the seminar.
repeated from conclusion to the whole course (peroration)

challenge

Discover why people act,
individually and jointly.

basic theories and discoveries
from three disciplines needed
to answer the question

to reach beyond
you need to look beyond

🔑

inconsistencies abound

but integration is possible

appendix

philosophical
methods

Philosophical methods: you might say, examples and contrast cases are the only things we have as philosophers, so we’re just stuck. But although I think this is right, I think it’s too quick to say we can’t do better ...

informal observation,

guesswork (‘intuition’),

reasoning,

& theoretical elegance

Diagnosis:
It seems to me that, whatever we are characterising, \textbf{it is important to distinguish characterising the thing to be explained from constructing a candidate explanation of it}.

Thing to Be Explained

Candidate Explanation

dimming of a star

conjecture about a planet

object-tracking abilities in infants

conjecture about innate knowledge

joint action

conjecture about shared intention/commitment/team reasoning/motor representation/...

Key issue: how to characterise the abilities to be explained by the theory?