PhilArchive
open access
Shared intentionality and the representation of groups; or, how to build a socially adept robot
Pietraszewski provides a compelling case that representations of certain interaction-types are the “cognitive primitives” that allow all tokens of group-in-conflict to be represented within the mind. Here, I argue that the folk concept GROUP encodes shared intentions and goals as more central than these interaction-types, and that providing a computational theory of social groups will be more difficult than Pietraszewski envisages.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Cognitive Primitives of Collective Intentions: Linguistic Evidence of Our Mental Ontology#736861
- Debunking enactivism: a critical notice of Hutto and Myin’s Radicalizing Enactivism#751712
- DoubleAgents: Human-Agent Alignment in a Socially Embedded Workflow#1110116
- Agency and Embodiment: Groups, Human–Machine Interactions, and Virtual Realities#740032
- Reflective Naturalism#699904
Record · ID 760492
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive