 Can the whole be greater than the sum of its parts? Does the existence of consciousness mean that we have to split the world between mind and body? Does free will make sense within a naturalistic worldview? These are the questions I'm talking about with Dr. David Kelly on the 76th episode of Patterson in Pursuit. Hello my friends! Got a really excellent conversation for you again today. I've invited Dr. David Kelly of the Atlas Society back on the show, and I intended for us to talk quite a bit about Objectivist philosophy. We were going to cover several areas of thought as you'll hear in the beginning of our conversation But we ended up talking about one, more or less. And we went into super deep detail and if you're interested in deep metaphysical conversation, you're gonna love it. Dr. Kelly was previously on episode 61 of Patterson in Pursuit to talk about Ayn Rand's Objectivism. He is the founder and chief intellectual officer at the Atlas Society. He has a long history within the Academy. He's written several books and he was part of a group of Objectivists that are explicitly open-minded and willing to learn and listen to other schools of thought. Which, as I learned last time I had Dr. Kelly on the show, is a rather controversial position within Objectivist circles, but that's a conversation for another time. If you guys are enjoying this show and you enjoy this conversation, can you do one of three things for me? Can you leave a rating or a review on iTunes or Stitcher? Tell your friends about the show and share it around to those who are interested in a new perspective of philosophy. And if you really want to show your support, head over to patreon.com Slash Steve Patterson and you can become a financial contributor of the show for just a dollar or two every time a show like this is released You can help keep more episodes coming. Thanks guys. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Dr. David Kelly So Dr. David Kelly, thanks so much for coming back on Patterson in Pursuit I really enjoyed our first conversation, so I'm stoked to be able to ask you lots more difficult questions about Objectivism I'm ready. I enjoyed our previous conversation as well So what I'd like to do is Cover maybe three or four big areas. I want to talk to you again about metaphysics we were talking a lot about metaphysics last time and one area in metaphysics in particular, which is the philosophy of mind and then I want to ask you about some Because I know ethics is big in Objectivism and I don't have my own ethics sorted out So maybe you can you can help sort me straight and then if we have time at the end I want to get a bit into the history of the Objectivist movement because I discovered in a very Jarring way that Apparently there's some passionate disagreement and schisms within the Objectivist movement because when I posted our interview last time I immediately got a bunch of people that I didn't know were following my work I've never seen him before who said I can't believe you had this Imposter on the show you might have it might as well been talking to bozo the clown He's not a real Objectivist and so they were sharing articles with me And I was just totally sucked down this rabbit hole of thinking my goodness like this is a really passionate area So maybe we can explore exactly what's going on there Sure I've been down that rabbit hole more than once in fact. I don't even go near it anymore But yes, I can well imagine the kinds of things you heard. Yes Okay, so but that's only if we get around to it and if we don't then maybe I'll have you back on and we'll have a fun One talking about that. All right, great. Okay, so I'll start with an observation and then tell me what your analysis and the Objectivist analysis of this observation is It appears to me That when we're thinking about things that exist in the world there's at least Two fundamentally different types of things. It seems like there's physical things and there's mental things Maybe there are other types of things But it seems like there's objects physical tears that chairs and tables and so on and it seems like then there's Ideas about chairs and tables and to me I haven't been able to square these two where I think there's actually in reality a fundamental ontological separation between mind and body between Ideas and physical objects. So what is the Objectivist take on that as reality split into at least two different realms? Is everything fundamentally physical or is it is it one type of stuff if it's not physical? How would you answer that? Well, I would say the objective is view is It is based on the idea that existence in the sense of what's out there in the world so to speak and Consciousness what's in here in your mind including your ideas feelings thoughts, etc are different and consciousness is a unique Is unique in that way, so there's yes There's absolutely difference between the objective world so to speak and the subjective world or inner world world of conscious functioning However, it's that is at a very deep level of recognizing Metaphysical primaries metaphysical axioms in objectivism the two really fundamental axioms are existence exists and Consciousness exists or I am conscious These are two pervasive and inescapable of facts That said however Existence exists is that statement would be true even if there were no consciousness I mean it was true before there were any conscious beings as far as we know assuming. We're the only Or you know Animals are the only conscious beings in the universe if that's true, so and so consciousness is not pervasive in the way that existence is and the consciousness is We know clearly this is The obvious in in at the common sense level and it's also abundantly supported by biology neurobiology Consciousness is a function of a certain developed kind of nervous system, so it's rooted in the physical Nature that we that we have But on another front and let me just or we can pause here I wanted to add a thought but sure let me pause there. Okay, so so yeah a few questions on that so you'd say that Existence is the thing that's Primary and kind of universal and that's the thing that is and consciousness is a part of Existence, it's not a necessary part, but it is a part of existence Yes, okay. Yes, well, it's it's necessary in that in and this gets into some of the issues that you go into In your book square one It is nest necessary in that every fact is necessary. I mean if it's a fact it's a fact period I It basically goes back to the law of identity things are what they are and one of the things people are is conscious so but still it consciousness is Something that we can study and say a lot more about It's nature because it it is a biological function Whereas we can't say anything more about what existence is the existence Exists so he can say really so could we say something like? We cannot imagine a universe in which there is no Existence because what we're talking about a universe there's got to be existence But we can sort of imagine a universe in which there is no consciousness Although even by thinking about it, maybe we're kind of interjecting our consciousness into it So in the sense consciousness is necessary if it is a fact, but it's not like a necessary It didn't have to be that way. It could be like you said that there was some kind of existence that isn't conscious Oh, yes well most things in reality are not conscious and as far as we know from astrophysics The There are billions and billions of years when there could not have been any consciousness because there were no habitable planets Okay, so that the next question then is does that mean that in the objectivist worldview everything is fundamentally Reducible to what we think of is physics or being being fundamentally physical made up of space and matter and energy That type of thing Everything that exists exists in the physical realm or the realm of nature That is has a location in space and time and involves matter So in that sense, yes in another sense though usually in the philosophy of mind reductionism means that It's basically the idea of reducing or getting rid of consciousness as as a Any kind of distinctive property by reducing by saying it's you know Our thoughts and feelings are identical with certain brain processes or There's a school thought called a limited toism which says all this talk about you know minds minds and thoughts and feelings is just folk psychology and Um, it's like witchcraft will you know, we will dispense with or Or it's just a sort of a shorthand We use because we don't know enough neuro neuroscience yet to be able to speak Speak describe ourselves um in fully in those terms So objectivism just agrees with both of those um emphatically because they have the both in both cases Even the you know the identity theory is so-called um minds Mines and our our mental states are identical with physical states um it eliminates it seems to eliminate the um possibility That consciousness is efficacious that that Our thoughts and decisions Are a primary cause of of our actions Um that they aren't simply epiphenomena Um which of course gets us pretty close to the issue of free will which we may want to come back to but um I I do also want to add um the thought I was um Have before in in response to your first question The the idea of the mental and physical is um It's a little different from the objectivist concept of existence and consciousness because it As you said existence includes the fact of consciousness um the existence of conscious states and For the one thing for another thing The way philosophy of mind usually approaches the issue. It's in a very cartesian sense that you know Descartes really um It gave this whole dichotomy of matter and mind extension and consciousness As two different kinds of substance That is still Dominates a lot of thinking about the philosophy of mind and I I think In that respect Aristotle was more I prefer thinking of an heiress you too in terms, which is that Things in existence are organized in increasingly complex ways So there are different levels of emergent properties that you you get from when you go from atoms to molecules to Organisms and cells and organisms So that life is um one level there's a distinction between the organic and the inorganic and then among the organic um the You know the characteristic of animals One of the defining characteristics in you know in common sense terms. Anyway, is that they are capable of locomotion and beyond a certain primitive Stage um consciousness, you know, they have detection mechanisms that are involved at least sensations So there are levels uh in reality and you can keep going on up up from the individual person to societies economies and they although You know, they're nothing in one sense nothing over and above the people who make up the societies Still there are properties that characterize societies as such now can you um Explain the how the mechanics of emergence works. So I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that difference if if the state of the physical world is composed in a particular way In addition to its composition, you have a new thing that comes into existence You have a new system or a new emergent phenomena. What is the status of things that emerge? Are they not they're not fundamentally Reducible to their to their parts. They're something new literally comes into existence Yeah, this is this is an issue that um It has gone through cycles of debate in philosophy. There was in the early 20th century It was a major topic And um, and then in the 80s and 90s it came back. I spent a lot of time thinking about it Back then and um, what I what I have to say would not be Embraced by you know, at least some other objectives, but the way I see it is When we say that that um You know a whole is more than the sum of its parts What that means when you drill down is That the whole can have properties That the parts in isolation do not have Because the whole is the parts plus all their interrelationships and those inter interrelationships give rise to functions properties Capacities that didn't exist at the level of of the parts and so Well, what exactly does that mean? And this is where there has been endless discussion. Um, and about how how you specify that exactly in in You know in philosophically exact terms one key issue is whether the whole has causal powers that Cannot be that are not simply Um The sum of or reducible to the causal powers of the parts for example, um the mass of the baseball The mass of a baseball really just is the sum of the mass of all of its atomic components So that's an easy one but living things at least I would argue living things have the capacities for goal directed action And the uh in the face of of the alternative of perishing if they don't act and act properly to sustain themselves In fact that and that will if we get to ethics, that'll be um the key to the objective of ethics But at the level of consciousness we we know that Not only the con that consciousness exists or to put it in my first person terms I am conscious but that I can make things happen in a way that um It is is not simply a matter of it's certain Individual cells firing in my brain In the motor cortex and in my muscles. I make that happen. I make those neural events happen So it's called downward causation if you think of the you know vertical scale as from part to whole Downward causation means that properties at the level of the whole have the power You know affect what happens at lower levels Okay, does that mean that the the prop the higher level properties in a literal sense come into existence? Well, yes, they They exist in that's as capacities anyway talking about consciousness Um That is a capacity that is exercised and continuously during the day and even in the sense during sleep because your Dreams and other other things are still going on. Um, you know a weird way, but uh So yes, the thoughts come and go feelings come and go The state of being conscious though is a constant. So what about the property? So if we say like with the baseball example, there's no additional Entity that is a baseball with causal powers that we need to posit in In addition to all the parts which compose the baseball But with something like a conscious agent or in any of these things where you think the hole is greater than the sum of the parts Is there there's there's still a property At time two that was had no type of existence in time one And that's the thing I have a heart. It's that's what it seems like And so that's the thing I have a hard time wrapping my mind around is how is it that by a change a simple Let's say change in the position of atoms if we're talking about cells getting rise to consciousness I got a change in the position of atoms Gets you a completely new thing which is a property that then has downward causal power Um, okay, let's We could let's walk through an example first of all first of all one point about the baseball um When I when I use that example, I meant the mass of the baseball that particular property baseball I ended in a kind of simple sense also has Properties of the hole. I mean for example You know when a picture throws a curve versus a slider It's because the stitches are held and rotated in different ways affecting the The arc of the ball so um, and that's something that You know atoms don't have stitches molecules don't have stitches even the horse hair I say doesn't have but only has stitches when someone puts them there and makes a baseball so but back to um back to the the emergence Uh or the the origin how these properties come about they come about in a causally governed way um I mean The tricky thing about the reduction versus emergence as an issue is part of what emergent tests are saying is that All along before the emergent thing existed The parts of which it is composed had the capacity to combine in a certain way with the result that um It as the result of giving rise to a new property. Hmm and We just don't we can't tell that um in in advance or or you know by by simply working up from the bottom We can't tell that in advance because we we don't know what causal powers The parts have until we don't know fully Until they become actual parts of a more complex hole So but I mean just think of you know, um the birth of a a child Through a pregnancy gestation At first it's a cell obviously not conscious And cells multiply differentiate At some point the nervous system differentiating into a nervous system as well as all the other organs and kinds of tissues and We have you know, it's pretty clear. I think That at some point before birth The nervous system has developed far enough that There is some level of consciousness on so it's It's like any causal process it things things develop in accordance with the causal powers that they have in them and um So it's no different in in that sense Fundamentally, it's no different from why ability ball Or to stay with baseball why a batter who connects Sends the ball in the opposite direction So So in addition, I think I I think I see where you're what you're saying is that in addition Or maybe not in addition. It's not the right word. So is it There objects and things have composite parts and The parts themselves contain capacities Not all of which can be Um Understood so for example the atoms in a baseball all of the atoms actually themselves contain the capacity for consciousness If they were arranged in a way where you could break them down on a fundamental enough way to arrange them into a brain So the matter would that be correct to say that the atoms contain the capacity kind of to do anything in in the universe um Well, yes in one sense in a fundamental sense atoms are the only thing in the universe So everything um in in in that sense Consist fundamentally of the properties of atoms or maybe we should say subatomic particles. I mean it Science physics keeps drilling deeper, but um, whatever the whatever the elementary units are The so yes, but um That doesn't mean that you can take the laws that apply to the behavior of atoms in isolation And from those laws deduce You know derive all the all the causal laws of every higher level phenomenon That all the laws of biology all the laws of you know psychological function So okay, so last question on this topic is then what what is a what is the metaphysical status of a Capacity to do something because that to me that sounds very abstract and I would even say In my own worldview that is a description. That's like a mental way of talking about something It's not actually something that exists in the object. So what what would your position be on what? What is the nature of a capacity to do something? Um, well, yes, uh, you're right when we talk about capacities, um, we we're using what um You know as you know philosophers called uh dispositional concepts that is We like brittle brittle means liable to break under certain conditions So but what is the actual property? Well, it's the atomic crystalline structure Um of glass that makes it, you know, uh brittle In the case of uh So in the case of consciousness we I would say the capacity in here is in In the nervous system in the brain um You know, we we may be able someday with with um more knowledge and greater certainty be able to pinpoint the specific areas of the brain That are crucial for conscious and we know something about that already but the um So but consciousness in the sense of a state an actual state not a disposition But my perceptual experience that i'm having right now And the thoughts that i'm having right now as I speak to you are real existence They are produced by um Ultimately, you know, they are they are produced or and supported by the underlying properties of my brain And same same would be true for anyone else, but they are not themselves neural states or material states But the capacity when I so when we talk about capacities like Here's an example. I'm speaking english right now. So that is something that's happening right now. It's it's an actual occurrence um I had the capacity to speak english Okay, even when i'm silent even when i'm asleep In a way that I don't have the capacity to speak arabic Hmm So For me, I like to lump I like to lump all of these problems into a different ontological category So I get to say things like well, you know capacity to speak english is a mental phenomena And the the conscious state is a mental phenomenon. It can't be reduced to the physical world It's not made up of the physical world. There may be a correlation, but there is an actual fundamental um distinction there and This is a great segue because what it also what I get to cheat and do when I when I do that Is I also get to be open-ended about the existence of something like free will Well, if it's the case that not everything is part of the this Seems to be physically closed causal Um system, then yeah, maybe you could have something like, um The existence of volition that's not that that You kind of um, I give a special exception to things which exist in this other realm Um, so what then how does this tie into the objectivist position on free will? Is that kind of the reason for saying there's this unique property of Consciousness is so that we get free will we get like causality or how do you how do you make sense of what appears to be our Capacity to influence the world based on our our decision to do so Well, I think the the the fact of free will is directly observable in the In the in the same way as the fact that you're conscious Um, you can observe the you know the the making of choice and the um The fact that you Face alternatives and could choose either one and that when after you've chosen one It's still true that you could have chosen the other and also that you the agent you The person are the are the one Making that choice and making the action happen How does that tie in with um Now as far as we know other animal species at least They do not have or show signs of the same capacity for free will Um, there are some borderline cases in interesting research, you know about uh certain of the great apes and Possibly even you know like dolphins, maybe but the um That where we you know the evidence is ambiguous But I would still say in the like take a dog And in the case of of my dog Um, the dog is still conscious and its consciousness governs its behavior It's because it smells the food that it runs to it because it Sees the frisbee uh in the air that it runs to catch it So consciousness is efficacious wherever it occurs even at the um sensory motor The perception action um level But what seems to be Unique and uniquely relevant to the human capacity for free will is The fact that we are self-conscious That We we have the ability to step back from the well. First of all, we have the conceptual capacity To formulate alternatives to think about the future in conceptual terms and uh But also that we're self-conscious that we're aware of ourselves And We are in that respect capable of self-direction At a level of Inward control that other species don't seem to have Hmm Nathaniel brandon um had a marvelous essay I I can't remember but I I'll I can find it and you can put it on the when you put up the link to this This interview um talking about the the levels of inward control from Like the classic newtonian physics building your balls on a table not much inward control Once given their mass and position Um and the angle at which it's another ball hits them They're going to do with it what they have to do with animals There's goal directed action, which is initiated from within And governed by Internal biological needs. It's you know, even when a plant turns its leaves to the sun It's not literally the sun pushing the leaf or pulling the leaf In the way the way that the object ball hits the cue ball It's the internal dynamics of photosynthesis and on and upward and upward into the animal sphere and then the human sphere It's increasingly increasing degrees of inward control. So yeah, that's how I that's how I would see it so I love the language of seeing inward control and I'm thinking about humans as agents because that accords with my experiences. It seems like I am an agent It seems like I have inward control But when I try to give that some theory and say, okay Well, what types of thing exists what types of things exist in the world? Well agents with control exist I have a I have a hard time not developing something that sounds a lot like a soul like there are Beings that are out there that can that seem to have I seems like I'm a ghost in the machine Right like I can move my limbs I can move the physical world in ways that it wouldn't move without my choosing it to do so And then I that sounds like a very like a spiritual Metaphysics to say that there is such a thing as inwardness and right now. I think that's true That just from my experiences. I do think that so how do you try to to take those ideas which have I think Explanatory power and a chord with our experiences. How do you take them and try to avoid Mysticism that I think is very easy to slip into when we start talking about these things Oh, absolutely. Yes. And if that's the main accusation Made against this approach and the whole idea of free will By productionists that you can't have free will without a Cartesian soul that is or you know Christian soul a separate literal separate entity A ghost in the machine as you say But no, I think that's a false dichotomy we have consciousness exists I keep I've referred to more than once as a biological function and in that it is a biological function. It's like digestion Which is also a highly complex system That you don't find at the level of You know just chemistry or atoms But anyway in the case of consciousness it is it does have this unique apparently unique property that For humans anyway who are capable of self-awareness It is private. I I'm the only one who can introspect on my thoughts and feelings and you're the only one who can introspect on yours Uh, but I don't think that has to be any kind of mystery It's You can introspect on those things because introspection is a specific function Self-awareness is a specific capacity of the brain um Of the con you know the con the conscious brain but When we talk about causality. I I think it's better to talk about just The entity is the real causal agent and that's true for billiard balls and atoms You know One of the key things here that I think clarifies the issue a lot is rejecting the the humane kind of event event Picture of causality one event causes another Well, but but what is an event? It's something that happens and something when something happens Something is doing something some entity is acting so an event is just um a stretch of time when certain entities are acting but the causal powers with the entities and so when we think and we choose we're choosing as entities as Being whole beings that have minds and bodies that are have physical and conscious properties and Doing things So on the objective issue, this was iron rands one of her great insights. I think The essence of free will is the ability to focus your mind And that is an inner and that's that's why I think free will is tied to self-awareness because focusing or dropping lowering your level of attention or evading pushing something out of your attention Is definitely involves the you know Self-awareness So in that sense it is an inward process But I don't think it has to be thought of as a process Conducted by a separate entity inside our heads You know a Cartesian soul. So would you accept a abbreviated? Version of history that goes something like this that Maybe a billion years ago. Let's say or two billion or whatever All that existed are kind of fundamental physical elementary particles and there was no No Internal causality it was all particles being pushed around And then over time we fast forward a little bit you have In addition to particles being pushed around from external causes you have just By virtue of the fact that the way that the system was pushed around in other words this the position of matter and energy in in space you get a new type of causality which is inward causality controlled causality mental causality you get entities that then have the power themselves to cause other external objects to move So is that what is that like a would that be an a an abbreviated version of history that you would say? Yes, that's that's kind of what happened Yes, I that I think that's it. That's an excellent summary And dead on I've just add to clarify maybe one piece of it That even at that when there were just, you know, the basic particles hydrogen helium And you know the the simpler elements they still existed as entities and it was the entities acting They you know, they might have been You know 100 reacting but if they were reacting because of the natures that they had as entities the identities um So that's that's a fundamental that's true of all causality. I would I would argue but the there are then Different levels of causality like, you know, I was the idea I was attributing to Nathaniel that um Certain kinds anyway of of increasingly complex entities animals have Organisms and then animals and then humans have Increase this increasingly inward causality Defined by purpose of this consciousness and in our case free will so yeah, not to beat the horse quite to death Causation is always entity causation But entities differ and that allows for different modes of causality Among different kinds of entities So how would you How would you deal with somebody who said that what an entity is if we're talking about objects? An entity is fundamentally a concept that we put around Non entities in in the universe. So for example, if we're talking about like like a toy robot It's not itself an entity when we use the word toy robot. We are putting conceptual boundaries around a bunch of stuff Uh that has that is only being reacted upon So is that I don't I and I this is my belief I don't think that there are such things as toy robots In the world per se as much as there is just fundamental bits of matter That are put in space in such a way that we reference as toy robots Well, yeah, that gets us into um the issue of concepts and concept information But let me just make sure I don't think you're saying that I mean well Without consciousness, it wouldn't be any toy robots because There are there artifacts artificial, but leave that aside The robot the toy robot is what it is and and so Each individual one anyway The concepts of toy and robot of course are our concepts so And there's a degree of of mental processing in forming those concepts And then applying them, but I wouldn't say that It's arbitrary Along anything like the lines of you know, they're nominalists in on the on the issue of universals The we form concepts Again, you know, I'm summarizing the objectives of you here, but it's also mine, which I've written about We form concepts Based on real existing similarities and differences among things and We have lots of choices about how we you know Carve nature at its joints so to speak how we you know draw those lines to In in in a cognitively efficient way for us But but it is grounded in in the real Specific concrete similarities and differences I do want to get this because this is a good segue into talking about free will But I do want to just say one more thing on that that I So this is one of the things that I talked a little bit about in square one about like you said things are the way they are That is certainly true of everything But what makes a thing what unifies a bunch of stuff Into an object. I think that's what the mind does So I totally would support the idea that bits of matter in space That are positioned and structured in a particular way Are the way they are and they are there and if there were no minds they would be there There would still be that kind of structure But the unification of those things into one object is what the mind Is is kind of the defining feature of what the mind does is to take many things and then treat them as as if they're one Object so in that sense, I think in my and the way that I would look at it the toy robot kind of would not Wouldn't exist without consciousness But the bits of matter which are there in space would definitely exist Without consciousness. What do you think about that? Well, I think that's that's true In the case of the robot because it's an artifact. So but let's take a natural object Let's say a a tree So the trees there and I'm talking about a particular tree one growing in my yard And there there are two questions about combining here that I think one is The parts of that particular tree the components are combined into Rather large and complicated living organism. That's what we were talking about before Then I have the concept of tree which allows me to classify that particular tree in my yard with all the other trees There are the ones in your yard the ones in, you know, the black forest, etc so And that is a mental act. I mean the concepts don't exist apart from human cognizers or any I mean Humans are the other ones. We know who can definitely form concepts So I'm not sure which kind of combination the internal material Compensation of a particular thing or the mental combination of similar objects into a concept or kind I think a tree is like a toy robot. I think a tree is a way of talking about A bunch of stuff that's in space and that stuff changes in a particular way that we see kind of Regularities and the pattern of the bits of stuff that are out there and I think it's the same thing now if Because I get to cheat. I get to say if if we talk about conscious Things then we do indeed have some Some kind of mind independent existence So if we're talking about David Kelly, then I think it's the case if there were no No minds let's say no conceptual schemes Then your the contents of your awareness might still be around your consciousness might still be around But I don't think I'm putting boundaries around something and calling it David Kelly I think you actually have some kind of existence But I don't get to do that because I say oh, you're a separate type of thing. You're the you're the ghost in the machine That's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about David Kelly, but I don't I don't think trees are that way I don't see why we would say that they're Fundamentally different than a toy robot that acts a certain way when it's when it's wound up Well, the problem is this gets us into the whole idea of categories You know another one of Aristotle's great ideas. There are certain categories that seem to be really fundamental and I I Would say those categories are entities i.e. things properties attributes qualities, whatever you want to call them actions and relationships and that That's all the exist existence You know fall into those categories one one or the other or and sometimes, you know Complexly, but the point, you know what I was saying earlier that entities it is entities that cause their actions an analogous point is entities have their properties you can't have Say a red color without something that is red and the so You can when you set talk about drawing boundaries around the the bunch of matter that makes up the tree and And that but that's your boundary well At some point we get down to the atomic level or the chemical level or whatever at some point You're just going to have to say Okay, this is the stuff you could you kept using the phrase stuff. Well stop is entities and So entities have a primacy This is one way in which Objectivism is a fundamentally Aristotelian kind of philosophy Certainly in metaphysics Because there can't be properties or actions or relationships without entities that Have the property perform the action or Are related So when we get up to the level of trees Um Yes in one sense every leaf on that tree is an entity Um, every branch and limb is an entity Every root is an entity The tree is an entity and Going back to the whole idea of emergence the the tree Really does have its own status as an entity because there are things that it does it lives and dies How is how is living and dying different than the position of of adam's changing? Well because living means Continuing to initiate action in the case of a tree, you know drawing nutrients from the soil um growing leaves having and having leaves engage in photosynthesis I mean all of this is chemically explainable or you know, well, maybe not totally yet, but Um There's no there's no there's no mystery here but The tree itself is an entity because it's it's alive. You would ask, you know, I said it's alive and you said, well, what if dies? um and What's the difference at the atomic level? Or isn't life versus death simply a matter of change in atomic position? Well You know, it's just partly a scientific issue. And so I don't want to speak You know out of my uh Out of my specialty or out of the philosophical but philosophically Clear and answerable but The tree the example I used was that The tree has certain properties when it blows over in a storm. It's because and falls on your living room The damage it does is the result not of the anyone leaf or all the leaves not anyone root or all the roots But of the whole tree as a rigid solid extremely heavy object Uh, isn't all that still though reducible to change in change in atomic structure? So if you say, you know, if we're talking about photosynthesis or drawing nutrients from the soil or a tree blowing over And falling on a house when we talk about The tree it's I would I think it still Works to say the bunch of stuff for the bunch of atomic units And then we say it fell on a house is another way of saying a bunch of stuff changed position Uh, and then it you know to say it broke your house is to say I think a bunch of stuff changed position Where so wide we don't even I mean, I like actually what you said about the Like the atoms being entities. I think that's actually correct. So there are there are entities I think there are lots and lots of entities which are the fundamental units of of maybe spacetime But why do we need to posit? Entities in addition to all the fundamental stuff if we can explain all this phenomena just with changes in atomic position But we can't explain it We can say, um that that when a tree falls, uh Under a house you can say that what is happening is a large a large huge number of Of atoms that have been joined into, um by, uh very strong bonds Have changed position what you can't do is Start from what we know are the causal powers of atoms Or even the causal powers of atoms to combine into molecules And from that deduce In fur and totally explain Why a tree would blow over in a hurricane To touch on a solar topic right now And by the way, I hope you're okay Yeah, we well we're in Charleston now. Um, they just had some flooding here But we we spent some time in virginia while it was while it was blowing over. So everything's good here We're talking about uh Irma. Um in late late september right, um, so yeah um And that's why I say this is just This is one of one of the things that is um A piece of the whole reduction versus emergence issue because real thorough reductionists I believe are committed to the claim that Take what we know about the four fundamental forces in physics that govern at the atomic level and subatomic level and The location and position of the atoms as atoms and from that you can infer Everything up to cellular structure animal behavior conscious thought The the movement of inflation inflation through an economy I mean that that just seems to me an outlandish Article of faith for which there is zero evidence I think I think I agree and I that it often leads people to a limited of materialism And they they do this this very dogmatic turn of reasoning where they think Okay, the way that the world is is this reductive picture and therefore that means there is There are no other entities. So if you're talking about or no other phenomena So if you're talking about consciousness if I can't reduce that to just You know bits of stuff moving around that means it can't exist. I think that's a completely backwards way of Developing that a metaphysics, but I think there's another option here Which is to is to be a reductivist or reductionist if it works In one system So I think I would be something like a physical reductionist in the sense that All physical phenomena can be fully explained by the movement and change in position of bits But that won't get you just that one system isn't the only thing that exists There's also other systems like human actors And then when you get consciousness when you throw consciousness into the mix That consciousness can actually change the the position of Adams in that physical system and then you get things like economies which have this relationship with you know choices and behavior And like you said inflation There's all kinds of other systems, but in so far as we're talking about the physical system I don't I think it's simpler just to say well, they're the only entities are the simple entities There are no there's no complex. There's no composite entities outside of our Putting boundaries around them um well The distinction you're drawing between purely physical systems Especially if you mean inanimate physical and animate or at least conscious Ones, I mean that's a way of drawing the line and I I can't I don't think I have a decisive reason to ability to refute that um I I am drawn and so I have to have to acknowledge that My my reference to the multi-leveled Aristotelian picture is one that I I find just fits better with so much That I know And I you know, I do stand by the the idea that that entities even fairly simple entities That are complex that have internal complexity like the tree They are Holes that are more than the sum of their parts in the sense that we discussed earlier And that what makes the you know the tree vulnerable to hurricane winds Which will up root the roots and kill the tree and possibly you know break a window or a roof is the overall structure weight and rigidity of the tree Qua tree that is as as entity It's it's not I wouldn't make much out of that as those properties Rigidity weight and so forth of the tree as as emergent properties Because they're in in a way. They're so easily explainable In in ways that consciousness just isn't So that that's why you know as I'm thinking I'm on my feet here I'm I'm thinking there's an element of I won't call it aesthetic preference but of sort of intuitive fit that I can't reduce to knock down fills philosophical arguments and it may be because You know There are scientific issues here About the way the world is, you know, I mean there are lots of scientific issues about the way the world is But that they may be in play here in such a way that we can't We can't decisively say philosophically One way or the other I'm I want to stress so one thing you said earlier, which I totally agree with When philosophers adopt a reductionism As a kind of a priori or initial Assumption this is the way the world has to be right that is so What we in objectivism called primacy of consciousness. It's you know I'm not going to look at the way the world is And what the facts are and what the best way to conceptualize and explain the facts I'm going to start with an assumption about what the explanation has to be and then I'll make everything fit Exactly. I that is uh It was way too much of that in philosophy and you know, I I absolutely agree with your point Well, I think this is uh, this is a great Note to end the conversation on I think it's it's very fairly beautiful because I had a list of things I wanted to talk about and this we talked about you know two issues But into such detail where it was really delightful and illustrating the point Well many points one philosophy is really hard Two reasonable people can disagree about these things. I mean, I imagine in terms of our outlooks on the world We probably have fairly similar like total world views. Maybe politics and economic But on this, you know on these metaphysical questions I think you and I are totally different totally different planets, but that's okay Irreasonable people can disagree about this. Um, so I guess that means you're gonna have to come back on the show to keep talking about other issues that we uh, That we can talk about with objectivism Well, we may be on different planets, Steve, but I hope we're in the same solar system I think so yes, I'd love to come back. I I've enjoyed this one. Um as I did the earlier one It's great talking with you. All right. Thanks so much Thank you All right, I hope you guys enjoyed that conversation at least half as much as I did and if that's true I know that I have created lots of value for you since I had a blast talking with dr. Kelly today So if that's correct then make sure to show your love on itunes stitcher or on youtube And that's all I've got for you this week. I'll talk to you again soon