Schwitzgebel‘s isn’t assuming any property of consciousness is transitive. Rather what he is saying is this: given many candidate substrate-independent materia

Schwitzgebel‘s isn’t assuming any property of consciousness is transitive. Rather what he is saying is this: given many candidate substrate-independent materialist definitions of consciousness, if the property is true of individual humans and animals, it will true of their social collectivities. But, he says “many”, not “all”-he’s not claiming you can’t define properties of consciousness for which that is false, he’s simply putting the onus on the proponents of the “materialism can explain consciousness” project of explaining in detail how, and justifying such a definition. Furthermore, he’s not claiming that properties of consciousness are transitive from individual organisms to any arbitrary grouping of them. Rather, he’s pointing to social collectivities such as countries or governments as being so coordinated they sometimes act like they have will of their own emerging from the coordinated wills of their individual members. This isn’t true of arbitrarily defined wholes of which those individuals are part, e.g. the set of all humans (anywhere on earth) whose first name starts with the letter A. You are interpreting his point in terms of part-to-whole transitivity in general, but that’s not the case-the emergent properties of social groups are far more complex than simple part-to-whole transitivity. And it is those emergent properties he points to as evidence they may have a consciousness distinct from those of their individual members