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

[Pattern-chaser]

Hierarchies simply refer to a kind of order.

Er, no, they don't. You seem to have overlooked the full meaning of the term. Look:

A hierarchy (from Greek: ἱεραρχία, hierarkhia, 'rule of a high priest', from hierarkhes, 'president of sacred rites') is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) that are represented as being "above", "below", or "at the same level as" one another.

A hierarchy can link entities either directly or indirectly, and either vertically or diagonally. The only direct links in a hierarchy, insofar as they are hierarchical, are to one's immediate superior or to one of one's subordinates, although a system that is largely hierarchical can also incorporate alternative hierarchies. Hierarchical links can extend "vertically" upwards or downwards via multiple links in the same direction, following a path. All parts of the hierarchy that are not linked vertically to one another nevertheless can be "horizontally" linked through a path by traveling up the hierarchy to find a common direct or indirect superior, and then down again. This is akin to two co-workers or colleagues; each reports to a common superior, but they have the same relative amount of authority.

It is the links and connections between the members of the proposed hierarchy that I've been talking about. The term carries inferences of connection, sometimes superiority, and it endows its members with certain attributes or qualities. These might include some specific structure, nomenclature, placement, positioning, nature, and so forth. It is all of this that does not exist in the real world. That would disappear if humans did.

Your hierarchies are derived by simple inference, by attempting to generalise from specific (real-world, actual) observations to abstract and unjustified theories and conclusions. The latter cannot be observed, so their very existence cannot be verified like the original observations can; you can't take a photograph of them, because they have no physical, real-world, existence. This is where and why the map and the territory become confused.

[Sy Borg]

Hierarchies simply refer to a kind of order.

Er, no, they don't. You seem to have overlooked the full meaning of the term. Look:

A hierarchy (from Greek: ἱεραρχία, hierarkhia, 'rule of a high priest', from hierarkhes, 'president of sacred rites') is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) that are represented as being "above", "below", or "at the same level as" one another.

A hierarchy can link entities either directly or indirectly, and either vertically or diagonally. The only direct links in a hierarchy, insofar as they are hierarchical, are to one's immediate superior or to one of one's subordinates, although a system that is largely hierarchical can also incorporate alternative hierarchies. Hierarchical links can extend "vertically" upwards or downwards via multiple links in the same direction, following a path. All parts of the hierarchy that are not linked vertically to one another nevertheless can be "horizontally" linked through a path by traveling up the hierarchy to find a common direct or indirect superior, and then down again. This is akin to two co-workers or colleagues; each reports to a common superior, but they have the same relative amount of authority.

In other words, a hierarchy is a kind of order, as I stated. Your quote does not invalidate my comment.

It is the links and connections between the members of the proposed hierarchy that I've been talking about.

When did you speak about links and connections? Until today, you've just claimed that hierarchies are only a human construct.

The term carries inferences of connection, sometimes superiority

So there is a semantic interpretation that pertains to human status, so what? It's only one interpretation. There's a hierarchy in solar systems that purely concerns dependencies, not quality.

, and it endows its members with certain attributes or qualities. These might include some specific structure, nomenclature, placement, positioning, nature, and so forth. It is all of this that does not exist in the real world. That would disappear if humans did.

Hierarchies do not need nomenclature.

A beta bull elephant seal will be just as beaten up by an alpha, and humans have nothing to do with it.

Your hierarchies are derived by simple inference, by attempting to generalise from specific (real-world, actual) observations to abstract and unjustified theories and conclusions. The latter cannot be observed, so their very existence cannot be verified like the original observations can; you can't take a photograph of them, because they have no physical, real-world, existence. This is where and why the map and the territory become confused.

The hierarchies I listed are simply that. There is no need for humans, nomenclature or notions of superiority. They simply exist, as per examples given. Not everything real - especially time-based phenomena - can be photographed. I had already disproved that argument earlier, but you missed it or ignored it.

[Pattern-chaser]

Hierarchies simply refer to a kind of order.

Er, no, they don't. You seem to have overlooked the full meaning of the term. Look:

A hierarchy (from Greek: ἱεραρχία, hierarkhia, 'rule of a high priest', from hierarkhes, 'president of sacred rites') is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) that are represented as being "above", "below", or "at the same level as" one another.

A hierarchy can link entities either directly or indirectly, and either vertically or diagonally. The only direct links in a hierarchy, insofar as they are hierarchical, are to one's immediate superior or to one of one's subordinates, although a system that is largely hierarchical can also incorporate alternative hierarchies. Hierarchical links can extend "vertically" upwards or downwards via multiple links in the same direction, following a path. All parts of the hierarchy that are not linked vertically to one another nevertheless can be "horizontally" linked through a path by traveling up the hierarchy to find a common direct or indirect superior, and then down again. This is akin to two co-workers or colleagues; each reports to a common superior, but they have the same relative amount of authority.

In other words, a hierarchy is a kind of order, as I stated. Your quote does not invalidate my comment.

Yes, "hierarchy is a kind of order", as you stated, but it is more than that too, as the quote describes clearly. Hence, the quote does tend toward invalidating your comment. It's the "more than that" that describes the difference(s).

It is the links and connections between the members of the proposed hierarchy that I've been talking about.

When did you speak about links and connections? Until today, you've just claimed that hierarchies are only a human construct.

The links and connections are part of that "human construct", and not part of the real world. Once we have identified something as a hierarchy, we endow them with new attributes, such as links and connections. And these new attributes don't exist in the real world, but only in our mental models of the world.

The term carries inferences of connection, sometimes superiority

So there is a semantic interpretation that pertains to human status, so what? It's only one interpretation. There's a hierarchy in solar systems that purely concerns dependencies, not quality.

Our human interpretations don't exist in the real world, though, do they? Otherwise you'd be able to post photographs of them, and we would all see that your observations are valid. But sadly, they're not.

Oh, and "dependencies" are (some of) the qualities or attributes that I am referring to.

, and it endows its members with certain attributes or qualities. These might include some specific structure, nomenclature, placement, positioning, nature, and so forth. It is all of this that does not exist in the real world. That would disappear if humans did.

Hierarchies do not need nomenclature.

A beta bull elephant seal will be just as beaten up by an alpha, and humans have nothing to do with it.

A bull seal is part of the real world. Any "hierarchy" you claim it may be part of, is not part of the real world.

Your hierarchies are derived by simple inference, by attempting to generalise from specific (real-world, actual) observations to abstract and unjustified theories and conclusions. The latter cannot be observed, so their very existence cannot be verified like the original observations can; you can't take a photograph of them, because they have no physical, real-world, existence. This is where and why the map and the territory become confused.

The hierarchies I listed are simply that. There is no need for humans, nomenclature or notions of superiority. They simply exist, as per examples given. Not everything real - especially time-based phenomena - can be photographed. I had already disproved that argument earlier, but you missed it or ignored it.

There is no need for them, but we apply them anyway. And that's my point. We assign attributes to all members of any/every hierarchy, without knowing if they apply or not. These attributes are not part of the real world, but only of our world-models.

Your examples do exist, on that we agree. But the "hierarchy" that you assign to them does not. It's part of our world-models, but not of the world; part of our maps, but not the territory.

Abstract things cannot be photographed. You can't photograph beauty, although you can photograph a spider that you consider beautiful. Beauty does not exist in the real world. Neither do hierarchies, for the same reason(s).

[Sy Borg]

I gave clear examples of hierarchies in nature and you failed to address them properly.

I look at the logical contortions you need to avoid admitting that elephant seals do not have a hierarchy - which is a bonkers opinion - and it is clear that you resist the whole concept of hierarchy. You act as if hierarchy is not a phenomenon, but a lens through which wicked humans see a reality twisted by their own ambition. You act as if it is a bad thing, an unfair thing. No, hierarchies are just a thing.

Life is inherently hierarchic. X eats Y and Y eats Z. Death is much more egalitarian.

You claim that the individual animals are real but their behavioural dynamics are not real because you would have to film it rather than photograph it. You cannot accept that the beachmaster - the dominant bull elephant seal - is higher in the hierarchy than the betas. Very few would agree with you, if any.

[Pattern-chaser]

I gave clear examples of hierarchies in nature and you failed to address them properly.

No need to "address" them. The "examples" you describe are real-world scientific observations, nothing more or less. They are valid as such, and need no further discussion or justification. There is no dispute here.

The problems only arise when we take your observations, that are real and verifiable data, and we start to generalise, analyse, and hypothesise, and so forth. I.e. we apply induction — as opposed to deduction — to reach unreliable and unverifiable conclusions that may or may not correspond to the real world.

[Pattern-chaser]

You claim that the individual animals are real but their behavioural dynamics are not real because you would have to film it rather than photograph it.

This requires a separate and clear refutation.

1. I claim no such thing, nor have I ever claimed it.

2. I have never referred to the "behavioural dynamics" of any creature, but only to "hierarchies".

3. Your temporal 'explanation' misses the point, which has nothing to do with time.

4. You can capture photographic images — stills or movies — of things that you identify as *examples* of hierarchies, or of things that you believe to be beautiful. But you cannot capture a hierarchy, or beauty, because they are human-created abstract concepts that have no real-world physical existence. There is nothing there to photograph!





Here is a link to a useful exposition of abstract ideas and their uses: "What Is An Abstract Idea? The Key to Abstract Thinking" by Theo James, on Medium. I'm saving a copy to read again later...

[Sy Borg]

I gave clear examples of hierarchies in nature and you failed to address them properly.

No need to "address" them. The "examples" you describe are real-world scientific observations, nothing more or less. They are valid as such, and need no further discussion or justification. There is no dispute here.

The problems only arise when we take your observations, that are real and verifiable data, and we start to generalise, analyse, and hypothesise, and so forth. I.e. we apply induction — as opposed to deduction — to reach unreliable and unverifiable conclusions that may or may not correspond to the real world.

There is no need for induction. The phenomena is there and it needs no interpretation. You clearly know nothing about hierarchies, so it is time for a lesson.

There is an entire Wikipedia article on dominance hierarchies. The article has 95 academic references. Given that Wikipedia is often accused of being woke for its tendency towards left-slanted reporting, you won't find many who agree with you in this debate.

In the zoological field of ethology, a dominance hierarchy (formerly and colloquially called a pecking order) is a type of social hierarchy that arises when members of animal social groups interact, creating a ranking system. Different types of interactions can result in dominance depending on the species, including ritualized displays of aggression or direct physical violence.[2] In social living groups, members are likely to compete for access to limited resources and mating opportunities. Rather than fighting each time they meet, individuals of the same sex establish a relative rank, with higher-ranking individuals often gaining more access to resources and mates. Based on repetitive interactions, a social order is created that is subject to change each time a dominant animal is challenged by a subordinate one.

If you need more lessons, let me know. No amount of sophistry can change this competitive world into the socialist utopia you crave (that would, if implemented, be an utter nightmare).

[Pattern-chaser]

The phenomena is there and it needs no interpretation.

The examples are there. The pattern that we humans believe we've spotted is not.

****************************

This is not radical new philosophy. This is widely-accepted thought. These words say it more clearly than I can.

“A map is not the territory” is a statement coined by Alfred Korzybski. The mathematician presented this in a paper in 1931 in New Orleans. He used it to convey the fact that people often confuse models of reality with reality itself. In Korzybski’s words,

“A map may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the structure of the territory.”

He meant that people do not have access to absolute knowledge of reality, but merely possess a subset of that knowledge that is then adapted through the lenses of their own experience.

I have nothing beyond this to offer.

[Sy Borg]

The phenomena is there and it needs no interpretation.

The examples are there. The pattern that we humans believe we've spotted is not.

Everything you say tells me that you value your ideology more than reality.

“A map is not the territory” is a statement coined by Alfred Korzybski. The mathematician presented this in a paper in 1931 in New Orleans. He used it to convey the fact that people often confuse models of reality with reality itself. In Korzybski’s words,

“A map may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the structure of the territory.”

He meant that people do not have access to absolute knowledge of reality, but merely possess a subset of that knowledge that is then adapted through the lenses of their own experience.

I have nothing beyond this to offer.

In context, that snippet is tosh. If we can't understand anything at all, then Scott might as well close this forum. All discussion of philosophy, science and other fields of learning are pointless. As far as we can say anything is real, hierarchies are real.

Hierarchies are physical realities - realities that you complain about on a regular bais. The fact that you call yourself a socialist says that you are against the current hierarchies. Your resentment leads you to denial. You apparently don't want to admit that hierarchies are part of reality, other than what EVIL [your apparent opinion] humans do.

I have provided copious examples and evidence for hierarchies, which you dismiss with lazy postmodernism that ignores all contrary evidence.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have provided copious examples and evidence for hierarchies, which you dismiss with lazy postmodernism that ignores all contrary evidence.

I'll have one last try, then I'll stop.

The "examples and evidence" are real and not disputed. They are your *observations*. In scientific terms, they, and your records of them, are your data. So far, so real.

Once your observations are recorded, we move on to the next stages, analysis, hypothesis, speculation, and so forth, finally leading to conclusions. All of this, except the data/observations, is created by us, and is not part of the real world. The target of our speculations is the real world, of course, but the speculation itself is not, and neither are its conclusions.

Hierarchies, and beauty, are just such speculations. Neither exists in the real world. And yet, in the real world, we can easily point to *EXAMPLES* of either or both. But we can't point to hierarchies or beauty themselves, or photograph them either, because they don't exist in the real world. They exist only as annotations on our world-models. You see?


I've contributed as much as I am able to this discussion. I'm done.

[Sy Borg]

Once your observations are recorded, we move on to the next stages, analysis, hypothesis, speculation, and so forth, finally leading to conclusions. All of this, except the data/observations, is created by us, and is not part of the real world.

I'll put aside the obvious fact that humans are part of the real world.

When beta elephant seals are beaten to a pulp by an alpha, that is not a human observation. The betas huddling together while the alpha has sex with all the females is not a human observation, it's fact. The hierarchy could not be more clear. You cannot rationalise your way out of that.

Hierarchies, and beauty, are just such speculations.

Category error. Beauty is obviously subjective. Hierarchies are objective. You complain about hierarchies on political threads almost every day, either explicitly or implicitly.

It's obvious that you dislike hierarchies, you think they are unfair, so you want to deny them legitimacy.

No, not everything has to be political. Hierarchies are part of nature. It's how some kinds of groupings organise.

Hierarchies are not the only way multiple entities arrange themselves, eg. flocks of starlings and schools of fish, which are the cumulative effect of interaction between immediate neighbours. However, if you are a beta bull elephant seal - bloodied and sexually frustrated - the hierarchy is painfully real.

[Good_Egg]

You're talking about how much of the concept "hierarchy" is objectively real and how much is a cultural value-system that we in our Western culture read onto the data.

Seems to me that dominance relationships objectively exist. Evolutionary success objectively exists, and the frustration of desire objectively exists.

What is cultural is firstly the nomenclature of up/down. A different culture might mentally depict such relationships on a horizontal axis.

Secondly, any implication that natural is good or morally unobjectionable is cultural. It is perfectly possible to value "progress" away from a state of nature, and some people do.

[Sushan]

You have strange ideas nowadays - you speak of stratification as if it is imaginary but claim that leprechauns might be real.

If I drop a pebble, it falls to the floor, every time I try it. We label this observed phenomenon "gravity". So far, so good: this is simple empirical fact; it exists.

But then we offer an *explanation* for gravity, and our *explanation* is our creation; it is not real; it has no existence out there in the Universe.

Hierarchy and structure are not empirical descriptions, they are putative explanations, and as such, they don't exist in the Universe, but only in our minds.

I won't be that quick to claim that 'gravity' (or any other physical phenomenon) is not there, and it just exists in our minds. I'd rather say, something is there, but our understanding is not complete regarding that, and we improve our understanding with the evolution and development of our knowledge and skills.

This was seen when Sir Isacc Newton's theory on gravity was challenged by Albert Einstein’s observations, and when quantum physics came into play, even the greatest scientist in the 20th century and his theories were challenged.

[Sushan]

You have strange ideas nowadays - you speak of stratification as if it is imaginary but claim that leprechauns might be real.

If I drop a pebble, it falls to the floor, every time I try it. We label this observed phenomenon "gravity". So far, so good: this is simple empirical fact; it exists.

But then we offer an *explanation* for gravity, and our *explanation* is our creation; it is not real; it has no existence out there in the Universe.

Hierarchy and structure are not empirical descriptions, they are putative explanations, and as such, they don't exist in the Universe, but only in our minds.

No, you are confused. Our explanation is a perspective - one perspective of real phenomena. Stratification is a phenomena, an aspect of how nature behaves.

Social stratification is inevitable in large, organised groups. If a large group of humans is not stratified, it will be chaotic.

I agree with the second part. Yes, the ancient societies were chaotic, and the one who had the physical power could get what he wants on expense of others. So the ones who lack the physical strength formed teams to add up the strength, and did whatever they want. And at some point people thought it was not right, and they wanted someone to protect them and keep the order of the society, and that is how kings came into play and with evolution of such systems it came up to law and order, and the different ruling styles we see today. And tomorrow it will be something else.

[Sushan]

I would say that's topsy-turvy; that it's all the wrong way round. BUT ... I agree anyway.

We can't grok big things in one go, so we break them down — where "break" is the operative word — into smaller things that are a little easier to understand. And so on. This inevitably results in a seeming of structure and hierarchy. A structure and hierarchy of where our breaks are located.

No, it is not topsy turvy. It's a matter of physics, not epistemology. While chunking obviously occurs, there is physical tendency for large things to complexify, for scale to bring on emergent properties.

The structure of planets makes that clear. Planetesimals don't tend to have structure, which only appears due to gravity as the objects accrete material.

Thank you for the explanation, and this knowledge was new to me. I see that in a comparative way the two can be understood in this manner, although I am not sure whether the density of the core, or the control of the governing bodies, is the only reason for societies to condense around the top layers of the hierarchy, or the dense core in this comparison.

Yes, analogies can only be stretched so far. The issue is emergence. Things grow, shrink, stretch, squeeze, freeze, boil until a threshold in reached. Planets and stars. Water. Chemicals. Rocks.

As for populations of humans and other animals, note how many social species have battles for dominance.

I tried to think groups of animals I've seen that don't seem hierarchic to test my point. Sometimes I see groups of around fifty birds called ibises, pecking away on a field, eating grubs, worms, beetles, skinks etc. They look to be quite loose and unordered. I checked with AI:

Yes, there are hierarchies within flocks of ibises. The social structure of ibises can be quite complex, particularly during the breeding season. Males often exhibit behaviors that indicate a hierarchy as they compete for nesting sites and mates. Some males may choose to remain at the colony to guard nests from rivals and predators, which can lead to periods of starvation as they prioritize protecting their territory over foraging for food.

In addition to territorial behaviors, ibises also engage in raiding behaviors where some individuals will steal food from others, including both adult birds and their chicks. This competitive behavior highlights a dynamic social structure where certain individuals may dominate access to resources such as food and nesting materials.

The flexibility in nesting sites among ibises allows them to adapt their social structures over time, with preferred locations changing every few decades. This adaptability is crucial for their survival in changing environments and contributes to the fluid nature of their hierarchies.

Overall, while ibises are social birds that often form large flocks, there is a notable hierarchy influenced by competition for resources and reproductive success.

Since resources are always limited, there is always competition. Once organisms compete, they naturally form hierarchies.

I see your point, and the same behaviour was observed at the beginning of the formation of hierarchies in the human society. But we have come so far after that era, yet we fight over (literally or not) the resources which are sometimes abundant, but we are lacking the willingness to share. Seemingly the issue is with the greedy nature of us rather than the scarcity of the resources.