Presumably, you would agree that there is a difference between a non-sentient organism, such as a tree, a simple sentient organism, such as a fish, complex sentient organisms such as elephants and primates, and complex, rational, sentient beings, such as humans. All can be understood through the perspective of biology, but biology does not necessarily extend to, or explain, the nature of what differentiates the complex-sentient and rational-complex-sentient beings from trees and comb jellies. They are subjects of experience - something which is not plausibly deniable. At issue is what it is that gives them this quality of subjective awareness.

I do agree, but I do not need to add mental properties. Their biologies are different. Their positions in space and time are different (the principium individuationis). This accounts perfectly for what differentiates the complex-sentient and rational-complex-sentient beings from trees and comb jellies.

The simple reason why I cannot know what it’s like to be a bat is because I am not a bat. I am not of the same biology. I am a different thing. This also accounts for why I cannot see from your perspective, which is the perspective of your particular and discrete biology. We do not need to stir in fictions like experience, consciousness, and mental properties, because all states of experience (as Chalmers called them) are states of the body.

It’s why I cannot conceive of the p-zombie, and the conceivability of p-zombies is one of his strongest arguments. It just falls apart unless you beg the question regarding experience, and reify the ghosts.

There is an irony in atheism insofar as it is a theological position. It both requires study of theological arguments, epistemology, metaphysics, and religion. In order to be without gods he must first have gods to be without. In some sense he never leaves religion, always keeping one foot in its sphere.

What is it like to be a football? What are you thinking of? Round (or oval if you're a septic), inflatable, ect? Is that what you mean?

I'm just confused by the statement that "there is something it is like to be such-and-such". It refers to the same thing too many times for me. There is something (the football) it (the football) is like to be the football (the football). It can be applied to literally anything, is all I'm saying.

Well, one has to use ... something! :smile:
Words like "something", "thing", etc. function as wildcards, passe-partouts. They are used for lack of ... something more concrete. I guess they are OK, as far as they help expressing, explaining, etc. ... something.

My own view is this. We do need to use something, and that something is whatever physical thing the word “conscious” describes. That thing is the object we need to analyze because it is that thing we are speaking about when we speak about a conscious thing. So in my opinion we need to abandon the question begging and the reification, not only because they are fallacious, but because they tend to lead us to false conclusions.

Please cite the text to support this statement.

Which one?

You were using the idea to make a distinction between what might be a problem of experience between beings who care about it with an object you are confident does not share the problem.

A panpsychist like Chalmers might disagree. “Conscious experience”, to him, is fundamental after all. It does not supervene on the physical properties.

There is nothing it is like to be a football, then?

I suspect Dashiell was a behaviorist, but I suppose he would be eliminativist today.

there is something it is like to be that system

I never liked Nagel’s formulation because it seems to me to apply to any system, conscious or otherwise. There is something it is like to be a football.

What am I not grasping?

Like any grammatical modifier the word “conscious” lends us information about another word in the sentence (say, a man) and therefor applies to whatever thing in the world that word signifies (the conscious man). The word “conscious” signifies that thing and must be a direct 1-to-1 ratio with that which the word describes, or else the modifier is false.

Adding the suffix “-ness” to the adjective “conscious” turns the subject of analysis from the conscious man to “the state or quality of being conscious”. What is it that is being conscious? The man, but men are physical, so we abstract out the man. This slight linguistic maneuver might provide us with a new subject of abstract thought to analyze absent what it used to signify, but unmoors us from the world, entering us into the paradox of a state or quality of nothing in particular, and leaving us with a noun which signifies neither person, place, nor thing. Our theory of consciousness has quickly been inflated to include new nouns and new nothings.

It’s all in the grammar. Chalmers almost exclusively uses noun-phrases like “consciousness”, “experience”, “mind”, which grammatically signify a person, place, or thing. He could say “I’m just being abstract about the conscious man”, and that would be the end of it. But that would refute his own theory, men being physical, biological, and all that. Rather, he posits these nouns and whatever it is they signify as fundamental features of the world, ontologically independent of physical properties.

I'm not interested in pursuing anything irrelevant.

If Chalmers doesn't think consciousness is an object, element, aspect, or entity, then why does he speak about it like it is?

I picked up the entire 1957 Americana Encyclopaedia collection at a garage sale, all 30 volumes. They came with a very nice cabinet.

What is this "something that can be experienced"? All these references to "something", for instance, "there is something it is like", but once we look there is nothing. Simply saying it is existential doesn't convince me much, I'm afraid. It seems to me that if you want to explain and prove this "something" it must first exist. But, as I said, it can only be assumed in a series of question-begging assertions.

This is evident in the paradoxical notion of "p-zombies", that there is some missing element in one of two identical beings. All that is possible is first to assume this element, and then further assume that this element can be missing.

I have merely established that I am conscious. The term "conscious" describes me. I exist, sure, but we have not established the existence of anything else.

Are you coming to a point here, frank?

Yes I am.

Thanks for the lesson, but I'm pretty sure I wrote "electrometer".

That is a safe assumption.

Why?

I'm pretty sure you can directly measure electrical charge with an electrometer.



I think you're right, and I'm sure there is much internal sensing, like pain. I mostly meant he is unable to match the internal movements and biological states to those sensations with observation and measurement, but point taken.

Can we measure charge?

Laws have been quite terrible and oppressive throughout history. So I’m not convinced they’re necessary, let alone to be desired. They are often enforced with brutality; they’re often unjust; they often serve only those in power. That’s to say nothing about the wars, genocide, slavery, colonialism, conscription, segregation, and plunder—all of it at the whim of some political coterie. I’ll pass.

We can get away from political authority developing. Though it’s true that they’re present, a vast majority of people interact with each other everyday without any authority intervening.

Herbert Spencer has a great little essay on this called The Great Political Superstition¹. He makes the decisive case that political authority is nonsense.

To paraphrase, the belief in the political authority of men is just as superstitious as the belief in the authority of God because there is no natural justification for either.

Given the premise of the divine right of kings, that the king was god-appointed, there is at least the logical conclusion that no bounds can be set on political authority. But for modern political authority no such premise exists.

Since the divine right of kings, philosophers have tried to invent justifications like the social contract, where we came together “organically” in order to give up our freedoms to the sovereignty of some autocrat. Nowhere in history can we find evidence of this. But all we have done is rejected in name the doctrines which we now hold in fact. We retained the substance, posture, and hierarchies of the divine right of kings after we have abandoned the form. Now we’re left to wonder why we must submit to a group of men which has no naturally or supernaturally-derived authority.

1. Spencer, Man Vs. The State, p. 123 https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/330/0020_Bk.pdf

I assume (maybe wrongly) that most people are raised by women in their "formative years". This suggests the influence of the mother at a time when a human being learns the most is at its highest, and in a way sets the conditions of the majority of human behaviors and impacts everything from simple relationships on down to the formation of entire societies.

Colonization is a fiction too because tribes had no governments and thus nothing could be stolen.

I’m not sure why. It doesn’t follow that because I reject abstract entities I ought not to use abstract language. I remain aware the term ‘organization’ refers to nothing in particular, so I’m not troubled by any dissonance. It’s just that it would take too much effort to find every particular entity involved in any given organization and furnish each with its proper noun. It’s enough to just recognize the limits of language and move on.

Nonetheless among the people who organize themselves under a common banner and around a common code, there are a minority who hold authority and status above the rest.

That’s how one can have an account that has all social institutions tending towards oligarchy while denying that there are any social institutions.

The mistake is conflating society and government. Government is compulsory while society is largely voluntary.

Remember Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

The government is anti-social, while the same cannot be said of the people who oppose it. Government seeks to regulate society and have it conform to its will. The people who oppose it do not. I doubt that the people seeking to escape government control would bring it with them. But they would no doubt bring society and forge a new one.

There are governments who protect the freedom of people in such zones, like the Sentinelese people, for fear that they may be interfered with. But they are not completely helpless. Anyone who has shown up there has been met with proper hostility and force, proving that they are not entirely dependent.

Note that somehow the leaders were able to come together consensually and work together without any government forcing them to do so.

I don’t use the word “gender” anymore unless it refers to grammar. Better to abandon the term, I say, and stick to “sex”. It basically clears up any confusion.

Money is just a medium of exchange. We could use jumping beans if it makes you feel better.

Note that no one can do anything other than pooh-pooh his criticisms and try to attack his character as if they knew the guy, and all to defend a system in which they pretend they have some modicum of control. It’s knee jerk, like he was saying something about their mom.

I think it’s a good book. The superstition is obvious. None of which critics say is even physically true, let alone logically. They pretend politicians represent them, as if a person they’ve never conversed with, nor ever would, was somehow able to grasp their concerns. It’s all true to them by sheer force of repetition, or ritual, or whatever else it takes the superstitious to begin to believe nonsense.

Even the rare self-employed sole-proprietor requires a state to enforce contracts and tender.

Would you say that such a state, where everyone is a sole-proprietor and self-employed but there is a state, is somehow oligarchy free?

I think it’s a superstition that only man in the form of a state employee can enforce contracts and tender and pave roads. That being said my own statism does go that far. I fear that by now people are so inured to government doing these things for them, that without it, they wouldn’t be able to come up with any other reasons to abide by contracts. No government for them = no contracts, as if people couldn’t abide by them and enforce them on principle and morality alone.

As for your state, I would not say it is somehow oligarchy free. People love oligarchy, apparently.

The way I look at organization -- work is already an organization, even of the more traditional sort. It's a legal entity with property claims and contracts. It requires a state to function. It's a space which is already organized with its own hierarchies and rules around property and propriety. People obey the rules, and are subject to discipline for disobeying the rules, and there are people who aren't even allowed in.

Not if you’re a sole-proprietor and self-employed.

I believe you. Heh, no point in disputing what real anarchy is.

Not all of them work like that, as you might imagine.

It didn’t last long. The Gov burned down their makeshift homes and sent them packing. I wouldn’t even say they were anarchists, to be honest, though a few were.

I can’t remember the last time I’ve spoken to someone in authority or any leaders but I interact with people every day for work and pleasure. Imagine that: people just getting along with some pushy organization telling them what to do. If I was in an organization, though, that would be quite different in virtue of its structure.

I’ve actually spent a few months in a supposed anarchist community, believe it or not. No leaders, elders, or anything of the sort. The only meetings we had were surfing and fishing and the odd celebration.

Imagine starting your arguments with “imagine” all the time.

Oligarchy is the rule of the few. So I see a few people holding positions of power over the vast majority of human beings. I would argue that very little in everyday social life is oligarchic in character, that neither rule nor coercive power need apply to any of it, really. In most instances and in most interactions throughout history, self-rule is the norm.

I’m not so sure of anarchism yet but I definitely wish to promote self-government and the rule of people over their own lives. The problem with democracy, from Plato onward, is that the state is always assumed in its realization. It might be that democracy is a one-to-one ratio with anarchy, hence why Plato and later conservatives thought it would lead invariably to some kind of anarchy.

How about the Quakers? They run their organization on the basis of consensus. Not just consensus building, but 100% consensus.

There's a lot of groups out there which don't follow this purported law.

After a brief look it appears the Quakers have clerks and elders and committees. Besides the belief that they are following God's will and not their own, Quakerism is a good example of oligarchy done right, in my opinion. Decentralized and largely volunteer authorities and administers, direct deliberation in how to apply God's will on even the most mundane of matters, active participation in governing affairs—should one wish to form an organization perhaps it would be a good idea to emulate them.

https://quaker.org/meeting-for-business/

I'm not sure oligarchy fails because I see it everywhere, I'm afraid. People keep instituting it, justifying it, and seeking to benefit from its fruits. Given the very structure of their organizations, it appears to me that everyone concerned with building democracy are really concerned with building a better oligarchy, especially one amenable to their tastes.

Better to remove the organization from power and politics. Organize for other reasons like cleaning up the neighborhood or helping a community member get on his feet.

I read the paper you presented earlier but thanks for the exposition. I do think quibbling about his use of the word “law” here and there is warranted but doesn’t say much about his central thesis or arguments, which need to be addressed as much as his choice of terminology.

It’s clear from the book what he means by “oligarchy”. Besides, I’m not sure the term has varied too much in the last millennia.

If Michels’ ideas are wrong there should be cases where he is. All it takes is some examples and the theory is essentially falsified. Wherever it is falsified democracy is possible. Wherever it is not falsified democracy is not.

But so far it’s nothing, at least as far as organizations are concerned. So why should someone like me or anyone else sit around and wait for political parties and organizers to bring us democracy, when it is more than likely they’ll bring us oligarchy? If they actually cared for democracy they might try something different. If they cared for others they might actually make an effort to do so.

But they don’t. It’s obvious to me it’s the power they are after, and nothing besides. Their advocacy of policies and laws does little more than puts a veil over the fact they want government employees to do the work they refuse to do themselves.

I've read The Poverty of Historicism and am confident that Popper would approve of Michels' theory and methodology. I think it falls under what Popper called a technological social science, which he distinguished from historicist methodology.

No one is absolved from the fact they trumpeted nonsense for years and were complicit in injustice, undermining everything from the justice system to the intelligence community to diplomacy, and leading directly to the sordid states of affairs we see today. History won’t forget these crimes.

Which organizations push the ideology of individualism? If I believed the fascist and socialist literature from the French Revolution onward I’d think you were right, but during my lifetime I cannot say I’ve heard much of it. I have to read the likes of Wilhelm Von Humboldt, Herbert Spencer, Henry Thoreau, John Locke, JS Mill to find any trace of it. I know Hoover once mention “rugged individualism” a long time ago and it has become sort of a meme, but not much else. Maybe I’m naive.

The 300-page Durham report is finally out. Better late than never, I suppose.

No probable cause, systematic failures, personal bias, two-tiered justice—the works. It's difficult and maddening to believe people were led so easily to such false and dangerous conclusions by what amounts to lies, corruption, and stupidity.

Durham Report