Michael Nielsen has a good discussion of Arrow's Theorem: A dictator means here that in spite of having a large number of voters ranking the alternatives, there is just one whose ranking matches the final ranking implemented, using any fair (according to the hypotheses of the theorem) voting system whatsoever. see Nielsen's post for the reasons we conclude this. And it occurred to me that this can account for the supposed paradox of Buridan's Ass. You recall that this says that an ass equidistant from two bales of hay will starve to death because (Being a robotic zombie in Jean Buridan's philosophy) it has no sufficient reason to prefer going to one rather than the other. But the ass actually has three choices; it can go to bale A, or to bale B, or it can ignore both bales. Suppose now that the ass's robotic brane is built on the basis of Dennet's Conscieusness Explained (surely even dualists will grant me this in the case of a zombie). This theory features competing agents each with an agenda to sell to their collectivity - in other words a voting scheme, and in this case each agenda is a preference ranking of the three choices, and Arrow's theorem should apply. So not alll agents are equal and one, just one, of them determines the action of the collectivity in spite of their independence. So there is no effective vote, but rather a single dictatorial agenda - whatever it is - is implemented. The ass survives. And what does this then say about Dennet's scheme in general?