Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Hierarchies are [...] inherent in reality ... subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, tissues, organs, organisms.

Or subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, sand and grit, pebbles, rocks, boulders, mountains, continents, plates, planets.

OK, so you're able to list things in order of the amount of matter they contain; their size. Is this supposed to show something illuminating? I see no hierarchy-pattern(s) here...?



N.B. Like most humans, I have observed patterns in the real world. Patterns such as hierarchies, for example. But that doesn't make these patterns more real than they actually are. Their existence is confined to human minds and human culture. Outside those two, these patterns don't exist; they don't enjoy "physical existence".

But the things that we observe to be forming, or participating in, these patterns? They're real enough, which we can confirm by observing their actual, real-world, physical, existence. Equally, we can confirm the non-existence (in the real world) of these patterns by looking for them in the real world, and seeing that we can't see anything at all, because they aren't there. They're in our heads.

[Pattern-chaser]

These are hierarchies that operate without need of human perception.

Yes. Except you have it all turned around. The real world — the Universe — operates without (the need for) human intervention. It just does what is in its nature to do. Without our aid, as you say.

But the hierarchies have disappeared; only the things you perceive(d) as the *components* of the hierarchy-patterns, actually exist.

[Sy Borg]

If "hierarchies are physical realities", then post a photograph of a hierarchy. Please do it now, and don't avoid this question. Show us an actual (real world) picture of a hierarchy.

I can't provide a photo of fluid dynamics either. Does that mean fluid dynamics are just a perception without a physical reality? Of course not.

Well, actually, yes, it does. More accurately, fluid dynamics are just a pattern observed in physical reality. The pattern itself has no physical reality; none whatever.

Fluid dynamics is a map-annotation, just as contour lines and hierarchies are. None of them exist in the real world; all of them exist *only* as parts of our map(s). That's what this exchange is all about. It should've been the briefest of exchanges, but it's turned into a marathon. I don't understand why.

What I'm talking about here is not new, and it isn't difficult to understand. I really can't see where your difficulties spring from. Sorry.

If fluid dynamics don't exist, then how do fluids move?

What I'm talking about here is not new, and it isn't difficult to understand. I really can't see where your difficulties spring from. Sorry.

[Pattern-chaser]

If fluid dynamics don't exist, then how do fluids move?

Now I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I already explained this, in many ways, and I believe I have made myself clear to anyone who wishes to understand what I have said. Here is my most recent explanation:

More accurately, fluid dynamics are just a pattern observed in physical reality. The pattern itself has no physical reality; none whatever.

Fluid dynamics is a map-annotation, just as contour lines and hierarchies are. None of them exist in the real world; all of them exist *only* as parts of our map(s). That's what this exchange is all about. It should've been the briefest of exchanges, but it's turned into a marathon. I don't understand why.

What I'm talking about here is not new, and it isn't difficult to understand. I really can't see where your difficulties spring from. Sorry.

I never said that fluid dynamics doesn't exist, but I have said, and continue to say, that fluid dynamics is just a pattern, and has no actual existence in the objective, actual, real, world: the territory (as opposed to the map); the Universe. This non-existence is why you cannot post a photograph of a hierarchy: it has no existence in the real world, outside our minds, that is. In our minds is where our maps reside, and on those maps, you will find contour lines, fluid dynamics, and hierarchies too.



P.S. To answer your question: fluids move according to their nature.

Fluid dynamics describes their movement, as we have observed it, and hazards an *explanation* of why and how they move.

But the fluids don't read such things. They just do what they cannot avoid doing, and follow their natures. Not consciously, of course. They do what they do because they literally cannot do otherwise.

[Sy Borg]

This non-existence is why you cannot post a photograph of a hierarchy: it has no existence in the real world, outside our minds, that is. In our minds is where our maps reside, and on those maps, you will find contour lines, fluid dynamics, and hierarchies too.

On the very most basic level, your claim is that groups of social animals do not have hierarchies, that they are all perfect little socialists, and it's only our human brains that interpret them as hierarchies. If not for our brains, those hierarchies would not exist according to you, never mind what happens to betas when they cross alphas.

Hierarchies are simply part of nature, how complexity tends to manifest. The fact that we place emotional values on hierarchies in no way diminishes that brute fact, but you seem to think that our views about the relative value of the various ranks is all that exists.

[Pattern-chaser]

This non-existence is why you cannot post a photograph of a hierarchy: it has no existence in the real world, outside our minds, that is. In our minds is where our maps reside, and on those maps, you will find contour lines, fluid dynamics, and hierarchies too.

On the very most basic level, your claim is that groups of social animals do not have hierarchies...

No, it isn't. My claim is that most or all animals behave as we observe them to. According to their nature. Sometimes, as we observe these creatures, we notice something we think is a pattern, as we give that pattern the label "hierarchy". The animals are quite real. So is their behaviour.

But the pattern we believe we recognise, and the things we think that pattern might mean, and its consequences? All of those are in our minds, and there is no evidence of them at all in the real world. Because they don't exist in the real world.

If looking at it this way is too confusing, then simply consider how these animals would be, how they would behave, and how they would live their lives in the real world, if there were no humans. The animals would be exactly as we observe them to be. But there would be no thought, and no talk, of "hierarchy", because that's down to us humans, and we aren't there.

It's not just the *word* "hierarchy", of course. It's our supposed 'understanding', and the 'explanations' that accompany it too: it's *THEM* that don't exist outside our minds.

...and it's only our human brains that interpret them as hierarchies. If not for our brains, those hierarchies would not exist according to you...

Well yes. The "hierarchies" would definitely not exist, but the behaviour, etc, is as real as it has always been, and is unaffected by our cogitations.

[Sy Borg]

This non-existence is why you cannot post a photograph of a hierarchy: it has no existence in the real world, outside our minds, that is. In our minds is where our maps reside, and on those maps, you will find contour lines, fluid dynamics, and hierarchies too.

On the very most basic level, your claim is that groups of social animals do not have hierarchies...

No, it isn't. My claim is that most or all animals behave as we observe them to. According to their nature. Sometimes, as we observe these creatures, we notice something we think is a pattern, as we give that pattern the label "hierarchy". The animals are quite real. So is their behaviour.

But the pattern we believe we recognise, and the things we think that pattern might mean, and its consequences? All of those are in our minds, and there is no evidence of them at all in the real world. Because they don't exist in the real world.

If looking at it this way is too confusing ...

It is not confusing at all. I expect you to sprout post-modern nonsense that pays scant attention to reality (often with an emoticon).

I will reply in detail for other readers because it's interesting. I do not expect the following to make any difference to you. Rather, I expect you to dismiss the following with another quick, airy post-modern comment.

Some common types of hierarchies observed in the animal kingdom:

Dominance Hierarchy (linear or pecking order):
Eg: Chickens, wolves, baboons.
Alphas have priority access to food, mates, and preferred resting places, and these are allotted down the line.

Despotic Hierarchy
Eg: Chimpanzees, elephant seals.
One individual (or sometimes a small group) holds absolute power over the others with control over resources, mates, and territory.

Matrilineal Hierarchy
Example: Elephants, hyenas.
Social rank is inherited via the female line, with daughters ranking just below their mothers, and all females over any males.

Age-Based Hierarchy
Example: Orcas, some bird species.
Older group members command higher status than younger ones, due to their more experience and knowledge. Matriarchs control the pod's movements and decisions.

Size-Based Hierarchy
Eg. many Fish fin species
Larger individuals dominate smaller ones, often securing better spots for feeding or mating.

Territorial Hierarchies:
Eg. Many birds and fish
Dominance is based on territory ownership where higher-ranked individuals control prime territory for mating and resources.

Colonial hierarchies
Eg. Ants, bees

The main castes are the queen, workers, and males. There are subdivisions in the largest group, workers. Young workers start out caring for larvae and cleaning. graduate to foraging and fighting. They "graduate" to become foragers and builders. Size matters here too, because the largest workers take on the role of defenders.

Each of these hierarchies is an evolved adaptation. There are real. These structures are needed for those species to survive. By contrast, starlings, sardines, guppies, penguins, bats and parrots form loose groups based on general consensus. Thus we see that hierarchies are real phenomena - a means of ordering multiple members of a group, in contrast with unstructured collectives.

, then simply consider how these animals would be, how they would behave, and how they would live their lives in the real world, if there were no humans. The animals would be exactly as we observe them to be. But there would be no thought, and no talk, of "hierarchy", because that's down to us humans, and we aren't there.

This is an assumption that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Bull elephant seals have one dominant male, a harem, and beta males. The betas fight to establish their own sub-hierarchy - to earn a fight with the dominant. The betas are not only aware of the hierarchy, the fact dominates their lives. Groups of weaker betas with no hope of challenging will lurk on the sidelines, hoping for a chance to force sex on stray females without being caught by the alpha.

These animals possess theory of mind - they know when the alpha can see them or not. Their survival, and the continuation of their genes, depends on this awareness.

[Pattern-chaser]

, then simply consider how these animals would be, how they would behave, and how they would live their lives in the real world, if there were no humans. The animals would be exactly as we observe them to be. But there would be no thought, and no talk, of "hierarchy", because that's down to us humans, and we aren't there.

This is an assumption that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Bull elephant seals have one dominant male, a harem, and beta males. The betas fight to establish their own sub-hierarchy - to earn a fight with the dominant. The betas are not only aware of the hierarchy, the fact dominates their lives. Groups of weaker betas with no hope of challenging will lurk on the sidelines, hoping for a chance to force sex on stray females without being caught by the alpha.

These animals possess theory of mind - they know when the alpha can see them or not. Their survival, and the continuation of their genes, depends on this awareness.

I don't think it's an assumption, and I think it stands up to scrutiny pretty well.

There is the Universe, the territory, which no-one disputes (that I am aware of). Then there are our maps, that would disappear without trace if humans disappeared. Do you really challenge this? "Hierarchies" are one component of our maps. Do you really challenge this?

That's all my point has ever been, seeking to distinguish the map and the territory, clearly, and not to conflate or confuse the two.

[Sy Borg]

, then simply consider how these animals would be, how they would behave, and how they would live their lives in the real world, if there were no humans. The animals would be exactly as we observe them to be. But there would be no thought, and no talk, of "hierarchy", because that's down to us humans, and we aren't there.

This is an assumption that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Bull elephant seals have one dominant male, a harem, and beta males. The betas fight to establish their own sub-hierarchy - to earn a fight with the dominant. The betas are not only aware of the hierarchy, the fact dominates their lives. Groups of weaker betas with no hope of challenging will lurk on the sidelines, hoping for a chance to force sex on stray females without being caught by the alpha.

These animals possess theory of mind - they know when the alpha can see them or not. Their survival, and the continuation of their genes, depends on this awareness.

I don't think it's an assumption, and I think it stands up to scrutiny pretty well.

If humans didn't exist, social animals would not have hierarchies?

This from the bloke who reckons that leprechauns might be real.

"Phew, the flashy apes are gone! We can return to a socialist utopia now" say the animals. According to you, bull elephant seals will suddenly back off and allow other males to mate with the females. Nuts.

There is the Universe, the territory, which no-one disputes (that I am aware of). Then there are our maps, that would disappear without trace if humans disappeared. Do you really challenge this? "Hierarchies" are one component of our maps. Do you really challenge this?

Yes, it is post-modern baloney served with lunacy sauce. Uh, like, it's not the universe, maaan.

By your logic, anything that can be described with language would disappear if humans didn't exist, as if our classifications bring them into being. Hierarchy. Dreams. Power. Love. Friendship. Cooperation. Competition. All gone without humans, according to you. These are just maps, right? You can't photograph them.

That's all my point has ever been, seeking to distinguish the map and the territory, clearly, and not to conflate or confuse the two.

No, you have devalued a useful concept with incorrect application. The concepts of map and territory are used to improve perspective, not to deny the existence of intangible things.

[Pattern-chaser]

If humans didn't exist, social animals would not have hierarchies?

Now I'm sure you are taking the p1ss.

Look, if you get rid of humans, then the maps — each and every one of them — disappear without trace. That's how we know they are/were human creations. And that which remains, without exception, is and was the territory, which was not human-created.

If you need more than this, I suggest you consult a search engine about the map and the territory.





N.B. It's not the label "hierarchies" that is in dispute. Nor are the real-world empirical observations we make. It's what follows. After we have recorded our observations, we start to analyse, and theorise, and generalise, and so forth, until we reach one or more *conclusions*. It is all that that is the problem here. Not the observations, or the thing(s) observed, but the 'explanations' (etc) that follow, leading to (potentially spurious) 'understanding'.

[Pattern-chaser]

The concepts of map and territory are used to improve perspective, not to deny the existence of intangible things.

Not to "deny existence", but only to observe that anything that appears only in our maps, and not in the territory, has no real-world existence. It still 'exists' on the map, but not in reality.

[Pattern-chaser]

The map and territory is a metaphor used to illustrate the difference between the actual world and our understanding of the world as we perceive it to be.
...
The idea of maps vs territory extends into a metaphor for the differences between our beliefs and reality itself.

[Sy Borg]

The concepts of map and territory are used to improve perspective, not to deny the existence of intangible things.

Not to "deny existence", but only to observe that anything that appears only in our maps, and not in the territory, has no real-world existence. It still 'exists' on the map, but not in reality. 🙄

You keep repeating this as though hierarchies were not a standard part of nature but some elitist viewpoint of humans about reality. If you could remove your socialist lens for a moment and look at reality baldly, you might see more clearly.

If you were a beta bull elephant seal and you'd just been beaten to a pulp by the alpha, you would understand that hierarchies are real. Even our bodies are a hierarchy. Our families. Our communities. Our nations. Ecosystems are full of hierarchies. They are everywhere. If you could somehow remove these hierarchies, the structures would collapse.

Still, having once been a rabid socialist like you, I appreciate that nothing I can say to you will convince you that hierarchies are anything but human notions that reflect our corruption, imposing our sick ideas of nature, which of course is always perfectly egalitarian.

[Pattern-chaser]

The concepts of map and territory are used to improve perspective, not to deny the existence of intangible things.

Not to "deny existence", but only to observe that anything that appears only in our maps, and not in the territory, has no real-world existence. It still 'exists' on the map, but not in reality.

You keep repeating this as though hierarchies were not a standard part of nature but some elitist viewpoint of humans about reality.

But hierarchies are not a "standard part of nature", they are a human *INTERPRETATION* of reality (not a "viewpoint", "elitist" or not). There are many facts about reality, and many observations we have made of them. These facts, and the corresponding observations are real and actual; they are parts of reality.

Hierarchies — and I don't mean the label, or the factual things that the labels describe; I mean the interpretations and the so-called understanding that flows from them — are not parts of reality, but only of human culture. Hierarchies are nothing more than patterns that we believe we recognise correctly, and maybe we do.

As we have already concluded, some posts ago, imagine all the humans have gone. The territory is unchanged (excepting our absence), but all of our human maps have gone, too. Because they aren't, and never were, part of reality. So if you want to find out if something is part of 'reality' or not, imagine if all the humans had gone. Is it still there, or has it gone too? QED

[Sy Borg]

The concepts of map and territory are used to improve perspective, not to deny the existence of intangible things.

Not to "deny existence", but only to observe that anything that appears only in our maps, and not in the territory, has no real-world existence. It still 'exists' on the map, but not in reality. 🙄

You keep repeating this as though hierarchies were not a standard part of nature but some elitist viewpoint of humans about reality.

But hierarchies are not a "standard part of nature", they are a human *INTERPRETATION* of reality (not a "viewpoint", "elitist" or not). There are many facts about reality, and many observations we have made of them. These facts, and the corresponding observations are real and actual; they are parts of reality.

Hierarchies — and I don't mean the label, or the factual things that the labels describe; I mean the interpretations and the so-called understanding that flows from them — are not parts of reality, but only of human culture. Hierarchies are nothing more than patterns that we believe we recognise correctly, and maybe we do.

As we have already concluded, some posts ago, imagine all the humans have gone. The territory is unchanged (excepting our absence), but all of our human maps have gone, too. Because they aren't, and never were, part of reality. So if you want to find out if something is part of 'reality' or not, imagine if all the humans had gone. Is it still there, or has it gone too? QED

I get it. You believe that hierarchies are evil, that fail to accord to your Marxist utopian fantasies.

You seemingly cannot comprehend that hierarchies are not inherently emotional, political or human. You anthropomorphise the concept than then imply that I am anthropomorphising.

Hierarchies simply refer to a kind of order. Hierarchies exist and humans notice them, not invent them. A flock of starlings is not hierarchic, a herd of elephant seals is hierarchic.

It seems I have to keep repeating myself, but nothing much is actually getting in. Is your mind still working as it should or has age caught up with you? If you are declining, I recommend crosswords and math puzzles.