Hostname: page-component-758b78586c-dtt57 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-11-27T20:05:10.984Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2010

Olivier Roy*
University of Groningen


In this paper I study intentions of the form ‘I intend that we . . .’, that is, intentions with a we-content, and their role in interpersonal coordination. I focus on the notion of epistemic support for such intentions. Using tools from epistemic game theory and epistemic logic, I cast doubt on whether such support guarantees the other agents' conditional mediation in the achievement of such intentions, something that appears important if intentions with a we-content are to count as genuine intentions. I then formulate a stronger version of epistemic support, one that does indeed ensure the required mediation, but I then argue that it rests on excessively strong informational conditions. In view of this I provide an alternative set of conditions that are jointly sufficient for coordination in games, and I argue that these conditions constitute a plausible alternative to the proposed notion of epistemic support.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Aumann, R. J. 1987. Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality. Econometrica 55: 118.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. J. and Brandenburger, A. 1995. Epistemic conditions for Nash equilibrium. Econometrica 63: 11611180.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. J. and Dreze, J. H. 2008. Rational expectations in games. American Economic Review 98: 7286.Google Scholar
Bacharach, M. 2006. Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory, ed. Gold, N. and Sugden, R.. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baier, A. 1997. Doing things with others: The mental commons. In Commonality and Particularity in Ethics, ed. by Hein″amaa, S. and Wallgren, T., 1544. St. Martin's Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Baier, A. C. 1970. Act and intent. The Journal of Philosophy 67: 648658.Google Scholar
Baltag, A. and Smets, S. 2008. A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In Logic and the Foundation of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT7), ed. Bonanno, G., Hoek, W. van der and Wooldridge, M., Vol. 3 of Texts in Logic and Games, 1360. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
van Benthem, J. 2007a. Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 17: 2.Google Scholar
van Benthem, J. 2007b. Rational dynamic and epistemic logic in games. International Game Theory Review 9: 1345.Google Scholar
Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M. and Venema, Y. 2001. Modal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Board, O. 2004. Dynamic interactive epistemology. Games and Economic Behavior 49: 4980.Google Scholar
Brandenburger, A. 2007. The power of paradox: some recent developments in interactive epistemology. International Journal of Game Theory 35: 465492.Google Scholar
Brandenburger, A. and Dekel, E. 1987. Rationalizability and correlated equilibria. Econometrica 55: 13911402.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 1987. Intention, Plans and Practical Reason. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 1999. Faces of Intention; Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 2006. Structures of Agency: Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 2009. Intention, belief, practical, theoretical. In Spheres of Reason, ed.Timmerman, J., Skorupski, J., and Robertson, S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M., Israel, D. J., and Pollack, M. E. 1991. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. In Philosophy and AI: Essays at the Interface, ed. Pollock, J. and Cummins, R., 722. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
de Bruin, B. 2010. Knowledge, Rationality and Games: Studies in the Philosophy of Game Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
van Ditmarsch, H., Hoek, W. van de and Kooi, B. 2007. Dynamic Epistemic Logic, Vol. 337 of Synthese Library Series. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Fagin, R. J., Halpern, Y., Moses, Y. and Vardi, M. 1995. Reasoning about Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Georgeff, M., Pell, B., Pollack, M. E., Tambe, M., and Wooldridge, M. 1998. The belief-desire-intention model of agency. In Intelligent Agents V, ed. Muller, J., Singh, M. and Rao, A.. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1976. Practical reasoning. Review of Metaphysics 29: 431463.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. and Selten, R. 1988. A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van der Hoek, W., Jamroga, W. and Wooldrige, M. 2007. Towards a Theory of Intention Revision. Synthese 155: 103128.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1996. Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 549567.Google Scholar
Myerson, R. B. 1991 [1997]. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. 1944. A Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Osborne, M. J. and Rubinstein, A. 1994. A Course in Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. 1980. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Shoham, Y. 2009. Logics of intention and the database perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38: 6.Google Scholar
Stoutland, F. 1997. Why are philosophers of action so anti-social? In Commonality and Particularity in Ethics, ed. Alanen, L. & Wallgreen, T.. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 2003. The logic of team reasoning. Philosophical Explanations 6 165181.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 1995. The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. D. 1997. How to share an intention. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57: 2950.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. D. 2008. What good is a will? In Action in Context, ed. Leist, A. and Baumann, H.. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter/Mouton.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. J. 2003. Normativity, commitment, and instrumental reason. Philosophers' Imprint 1 (3):126.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. J. 2006. Normativity and the Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, M. 2000. Reasoning about Rational Agents. Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Agents Series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yaffe, G. 2004. Trying, intending, and attempted crimes. Philosophical Topics 32: 12.Google Scholar