 Happy 2017 to all my friends and listeners and supporters of the show. I hope you all had a fantastic year I had a pretty exciting one myself, and I'm looking forward to all the exciting upcoming developments in 2017 This is the 37th episode of Patterson in pursuit got a really interesting interview for you today You know I pride myself in having a breadth of knowledge some depth of knowledge on some issues But I'm pretty familiar with nearly any worldview that I encounter but this interview I Encountered some ideas that I I don't think I've actually encountered anywhere else. It was very stimulating and provocative I have a lot to think about and I'm really looking forward to doing the breakdown of this interview But right now contrary to any of the other breakdowns. I don't exactly know what I'm gonna say I'm still thinking about some of the issues that my guest brought up in this interview So I'm joined today by professor Mario Diccaro who teaches philosophy at the University of Rome in Italy But he's also a frequent visiting professor at Tufts University in Massachusetts, and that's where I met up with him Fascinating fact about professor Diccaro. He actually has an asteroid named after him. That's right the asteroid 5329 Diccaro is Named after my guest which is pretty dang cool our conversation started talking about free will and the Philosophy of mind and about half an hour into it. We start getting into talking about Causation and the metaphysics of causation we started talking about his ontological beliefs Where if you guys have been listening to the show, you know, I'm a duelist and professor Diccaro is a pluralist He's both a metaphysical pluralist He believes that yes There is mind and matter and there's other different types of categories of existence and he's also a causal pluralist So there's not just physical causes for things there might be biological or psychological or sociological or mental Causes for things neither of these things being able to be reduced to one another So it was a really really fascinating interview and like I said, I don't know my own Perspective on this topic I like a lot of the things they had to say and I'm still working on integrating this into my own worldview The audio begins just after the beginning of our conversation after he explained to me what he sees as the Importance and the implications of whether or not we have free will I Think it is fair to say it has huge implications Both in terms of how we might structure a legal system how we think about ourselves How we think about the concepts of responsibility what we are as human beings if people have never encountered the question of whether or not We have free will I would suspect the first time they hear it. They go, of course, of course we have free Well, I mean, yeah, what do you mean? Can I make free decisions? Yes, of course and then when you but when you start unpacking that well if that's true How is that possible and what does it imply becomes this really sticky issue? So how can we better understand the difficulties presented by free will specifically? That we do have free will let's take the scenario. We do have free will why why shouldn't everybody just go of course It's an empirical question. Look, I can do all kinds of things voluntarily case closed. Okay Two things before answering. Let me say that there are studies now about what the folk intuition is about free will So and the question is there is there are still controversies there if we think that free will requires determinism or Requires in determinism. So there are different studies and this will be solved at some point what the folk intuition is But that's of course doesn't settle the the issue you are asking the first thing to understand I think is that there is not one question of free will That's that's just wrong. There are several questions a galaxy of questions And some of these questions are purely conceptual and some others also need some empirical Research or confirmation or falsification of the conceptual hypothesis So let me give you some some examples the first question. That's very controversial is what is free will? And I will go back because that's what's the sense of your question, but there are others Is free will compatible with determinism or within determinism or with both or with neither other question is free will The condition of possibility of moral responsibility of legal responsibility This is another question and there are others that I could keep going all these are different because of course if you say the question what is free will is a conceptual question and Scientists as very rough sometimes the scientists I was mentioning not all of them But many of them even very famous ones when they write these books saying there is no free will They don't really are not very accurate in defining what is free will. Okay, that's that's an important point Of course, but even when you are defined For example, there are many people who thinks that free will requires determinism and some other that say no It does require indeterminist. These are empirical commitments for these views. So if you Hold one of these views you also have empirical commitments. So What I suggest in these cases is that you should look I have a Good conceptual analysis of the issue and then in some cases you have to look at what science tells us about those But you cannot disconnected to the two fields entirely. So if we could try to be relatively precise What is free will? Yeah, okay. So the first question is One idea that was an obvious to common sense of philosophy until it's a can't Excluded is the idea that is obvious that we have some kind to most philosophers that we have this idea of shaping our own destiny Because we are not determined by anything Think about the cut the cutter that this idea you wrote that the idea that I'm free is one of the most basic and Correct belief I have why? But well because for him belief applies to the mind and the mind is a totally disconnected from the physical world ontological ontologically so there is no Constrained by the mind by by the mother on the mind. So the mind can be Understood as causa swing some sense There was also for for the cat notoriously Mind and soul are the same thing the mind for the cat is infinite in material Indivisible and other properties. So it's an old-fashioned idea of the mind When when a band does this and tries to connect the mind with a body the problems begins And I think the best expression of the problem of free will in the modern age is Given by Immanuel Kant in the critique of pure reason in his famous third antinomy antinomies are Oppositions of thesis that appear both true So for example the two beliefs here are for Kant. Oh, of course, I'm true. I'm free. I'm free of doing Shaping my life and when I'm free. I'm responsible and the other is the same for the others like it's obvious that In some occasion not all the time of first time and some Occasions people are free act freely and responsible. It's all they you know have the moral responsibility of what they do This is obvious. This is the thesis of the antinomy, but there is an Anthesis is where is this the space of this freedom in a world that for Kant is the world the Newtonian world In which everything is determined by the past and the laws of nature So he has this big opposition and this solution famously and famously Unsatisfactory in my opinion is that we cannot think of free will in the phenomenal world in the world of phenomena In the world studied by science we have to locate free will in the world of no woman The world and we we can only conceive, but we cannot really experience directly There are many problems there with this dualism the first is that the world of no woman is out of space and time And I cannot understand what an idea of causation or cause freedom and Causing our actions could be if there is not for a space and time there So that's my satisfaction with Kant, but the problem is stated is still with us in some sense so what was interesting when you were explaining that is Descartes position. Do you think that? Free will becomes a non-issue if you accept a kind of radical Substance dualism and it's like okay. Well now we now we have no trouble It's only when you try to connect no, certainly. There is a big problem problem when you try to connect it, right? But there is there are problems even in the car denied it Even in the other case So if you have let's say if you locate Freedom in the spiritual world and the most famous version of this is there are others But the most famous famous one is the theological problem of free will because the cat himself thought that an unimportant Omniscient God Has created this world and he knows what I'm we are going to do and perhaps even intervenes so that so that Menace to freedom there is not the laws of nature, but God's properties. There is a famous problem there and For example Luther and Calvin when they you know Started the reformation wrote two books against the idea of free will that was basic in the Catholic Church one Luther wrote a book called the Bound wheel and Calvin went on predestination so both theorized that Our moral actions at least that's what interests them And not up to us really so it's already established if we'll go to Heaven or hell there is no free will that can save us there so theological questions aside Is there room then so let's take a Substance dualist position that makes no claims about God. Just the mind is Completely in a different ontological realm than the rest of space time If that were the case now that obviously comes with a whole host of other issues, but in regards to free will What are there any issues that arise so because if I were to say something like I Think this is a bad argument But somebody could make the argument that it is definitely the case that we have free will that we act freely And if that's the case it must therefore be to avoid any he was extreme complex difficulty that the mind Must be in this This other place disconnected from space time, so it's an argument for dualism from free will yeah But of course even if we forget about God there that's not so easy because and that's generally normally interpreted in a Theological scenario or framework There is an obvious problem that is the problem of all forms of radical dualism How can the mind interact with the with the material matter world right there are you know if them and the mind is totally Independent in this scenario, but that's not what we think when we think of our freedom We think that we make changes in the physical world and also we are of course influence causally Influenced by the physical world no defender at the most extreme libertarian Wouldn't deny that we our beliefs and our desires are Influenced perhaps not determined But that's still influenced it by how we perceive the world with us through the senses and so the problem is how can this ontologically Independent mind interact with the physical world the solutions are very unsatisfactory there one is of course the cat Pineal gland that's almost unbearable because the pineal gland of course is in the physical world So they're probably simply located by it's not solved right But then there are others more promising but very very metaphysical like parallelism the one Or pre-established harmony or occasionalism. So are all views in which? It's a sort of miracle that the mind that the world go in parallel, right? In some cases they simply are independent. It looks to us that they are Interacting with each other, but justice God that I set the world settle the world in the way that It seems to us that things go together the mind that the physical world proceed together, but that's just God has decided that that's the case. It's not that there is any interaction now one popular argument when people are talking about the relationship between consciousness and External reality comes from quantum physics perhaps and precisely so it was a ah now we've discovered this this might be the answer to the Interaction problem we have consciousness that causally collapses the wave function. It actually makes an impact and this is the mechanism By which it does it do you find arguments for free will from kind of physics compel no, I mean it's so taken it said a terrible argument and And there are several things to say here first of all It's it's not completely correct to say that quantum mechanics Has been proved that the the subatomic world is Indeterministic because there are important interpretations of quantum mechanics like the boom boom, you know the The boom in interpretation quantum mechanics that are deterministic they give up The issue that this is a locality of the physical phenomena So phenomena can influence each other even if they don't are not connected in space But they are deterministic so it's not easy there if there is a lot to discuss and there are also other Interpretations that are deterministic but not local but besides that there are other issues first is not clear simply It's not clear if at the level of neurophysiology Quantum indeterminacies are relevant or not. So it's empirically unclear But let's assume they are let's assume that you know, there are indeterministic events in the brain This is what for example for the famous physicists. This is Roger Peres is the explanation or Free will and that's almost a non-sequitur. I think First of all, there is the famous objection that was famously made by Hube it by many others including at some point even hops So the idea is that if you simply have Indeterminism this doesn't amount to freedom at all because Let's assume that this would say would mean something like that I have to make a choice So I am in a restaurant and they ask me do you want pizza or pasta? If indeterminism is located in a way in which my choice is not determined I would be free to choose one of the two Without any determination. So let's assume that I choose pasta Well, but I was totally indeterminate there, right? Because if I was determined there is no indeterminate This means that if the world goes back exactly to that moment, I could have chosen the other I could have chosen A pizza and they say pasta Now I can choose pizza But look, I am exactly myself in the same mental states with all my history my desires my present Mental states and I decided in another case Indifferently and so it's not really up to me It's not I'm not the sufficient reason of what happens that after that I'm not causing what happens there because my exactly myself the president myself and my Decisions is compatible with two different alternative actually states of affairs So it's not me. It's just random what will happen. That's the typical argument, right? There's a so-called replay argument, right replays called the mind argument by vending wagon because many article of this Kind have been published in the journal mind You can also rephrase it with possible worlds perhaps is even clear. So you have your twin replica You're the twin Steve on Twin Earth and so the past and the laws of nature of this Twin Earth are exactly like ours until the moment in which you choose between pasta pizza and pasta You choose pizza and twin Steve choose pasta Everything else up to that moment is the same and you are absolutely identical to Twin Twin Steve, so it's not you or Steve who decides what to do. It's random So this is so the most you can according to some I think this is too strong in determinism is Incompatible with free will that's perhaps too much It could be that is but the most you can get there that perhaps has to be proved is Compatible with free will but certainly is not sufficient. You need something else. So agent causation for example agent causal is try to add some Agential powers that can you know be based on this in determinism and try to govern what they do, but that's Difficult, there is for example this famous philosopher Robert Kane who has written a book in which he doesn't mention any peculiar causal powers of the agents. He only mentions Event causation so there are some in the term in the event and that in the brain and the same does Penrose this is indeterminate events in the brain are enough to justify the idea would choose freely But then he doesn't have a satisfactory argument for replying to my object my objection It's a general objection and there was a review by Al Mili to this famous book by them by The sith significance of free will by Robert Kane merely notice that at one point of the book Kane said that Exactly in the same situations. I would choose the same way and few pages after he said exactly the same situations I could do something else. So yeah, because he's Torn between the two alternatives, but neither works. Okay, so let's explore the determinist route here Is it possible then that? Determinism is true and you still have meaningful free will. Yeah, that seems to match more problems I used to say that when I was younger I sympathize with the idea of libertarianism But then I'm convinced that doesn't really work much and also I don't think it's needed to have such a Heavy metaphysics there because the only way is trying to say, you know, the agent causation agent causation is something special And all these things and try to elaborate a very Complicated the emergent is view the universe if you don't want pure dualism, of course. So I gave up Libertarianism and now I'm more sympathetic to Freedmen there is an idea to live compatibles freedom There is an idea that then then it has defended. So the idea is this we have intuitions about free will that are, you know, all Common sense intuitions for frequently are confused or partially contradictory But we should as philosophers try to understand what is worth wanting in this in this intuitions And what is working and I think that's the correct idea is to find an idea of free will that is sufficient to Justify our attributions or responsibility to each other and I would add also perhaps attributions of rationality or to people or to ourselves In order to be rational we have to make choices in a sense that is compacted has to be It couldn't be Done by a computer that answers without Any rational analysis of what the situation is so rationality also I think it depends on some idea of free will Responsibility rationality perhaps dignity are all dependent and what's what is crucial here Is the idea that we are sensible to reasons that is the crucial process So when we when is that we attribute responsibility for actions when people? Were understanding what was a stake where understanding what the Predictable consequences of the actions were where what the moral course of action should have been all these things this is rational reasoning and In most cases we are sensible to this Kind of considerations and reasons so that the framework where we should set the question is not a in my opinion Metaphysics doesn't help here. It's not that you should find you know Force a special agent in the universe starting to talk about supervenants or grounding of No, look at the practices and they're what really matters is when we are Responsive to reasons that seems to be the crucial point. Some people are responsive sorrow. Some are not We know right if you have Clip Tomania you can't really help yourself. You will steal if you don't and you steal You are responsible. I think that's interesting Doesn't that kind of put the cart before the horse though? So there are these other periphery things that are very important But the whole in my mind the whole issue of free will is the metaphysical discussion It is whether or not we are those actual Causal agents and that all the other conclusions that fall that from that seem like they're of secondary importance When you say that the rationality for example comes for free will well We shouldn't even care about that in my mind unless we're these These causal agents, you know, okay seems like that's the central really the central issue I see but what I wouldn't know what I probably disagree with you on this is this idea of Causation as something that is there out there independent of our interest when When we think about the world so there is I think you have in mind perhaps and tell me if I'm wrong interpreting What you're saying some kind of basic causation that is the physical one and then everything other forms of causation up to Supervene or depend or on that kind of causation, right? That's your seems to be the case that just isn't in accordance with my Experiences I would say. Oh, yeah, it's this to your experience. I doubt that this is your experience I'm sure that this is your philosophy. Okay. Yes And so what is the That is an idea that of a strong form of ontological monies been here, right? So Causality is fundamentally one and has to be reduced to the micro physical level But and then it's already something is complicated there because of course in physics people don't really talk about causes So it's there is always something strange in this uptime to reduce all causation to physical causation Where are physicists don't care about causation? But anyway, let besides that is this the case? Let's assume that I take this example by philosopher that I Mired a lot. I've been working with him a lot. So Hillary Patram Patram asks Let's take for example a simple example. So someone has a stroke. And so we have to ask why and The metaphysician says oh, there is all of course There is one explanation that's you know the fundamental causal mechanisms there that explains everything Is this true? Is this the idea that there is an explanation on quantum mechanics level that is the Explanation of this phenomena. I strongly doubt and Patron did strongly doubt and I think you in Fundamentally also strongly doubt that so I think that as Patron says there are as many causes are Becosis so it depends on what interest you have when you ask why What is the right the causal change you are looking at well, yes But when you go that route it seems to pull you at least in terms of Theoretical explanation for phenomena into a dualism when we're saying so for example if we're watching like a billiard game What was the cause of the billiard ball knocking into the balls? Well, it was this force and that physical force or oh Well, it was the person's life choices that brought that they decided they wanted to go to the pool hall and take up a career being Yeah, that's that's I don't think it doesn't ever I See what you mean, but Let me put in this way what's So let's analyze the case of the stroke right yeah, so Some person is saying It depends really who you are in asking the question right because if you know someone says okay Oh, you know John had the stroke the other one says why and You respond of of course there is a you know the Micro at all subatomic entities or blah blah blah you go on and that's it looks are you are you crazy? Okay, so let's go to the regular one. So if you are a physiologist you could say something like You know there was some Physiological phenomena and so the blood was Blocked and blah blah blah that's an explanation, but if you are You know you are the insurance. You are not interested in that you are interested in other things like did he take his medications or Did he do what the doctor said or if you are let's assume that you are at the widow and the widow could think oh That was my fault because you know a letter yesterday. I cooked an incredible dinner and He hate you know to This is a past and then he had that that that too much too much. I knew I shouldn't have done is my fault Is this wrong doesn't seem to me that this is wrong It's a legitimate point of view or even could say oh, you know what I've been Be I've been refusing to go with him to run he insisted every time I didn't want to go So he didn't do his exercise and that's still my fault now How can you account for that for these kind of things if you only think that there is a basic kind of Acquisition what there should be so what is the idea here that? There is really out there a cause of distribution of forces that would accountable. This isn't this scientists in dream well Would you not say that those additional explanations could all be reduced? No, that's a dream I think what is this kind of reduction think about the famous argument by Patram the Patram has this famous argument. You know it perhaps so there is this Think about a whole one inch and two pegs one is circular just One a little little smaller the the the Diameter and if it's it is a square section of the speck and he said exactly little smaller doesn't Go there There is Patram is right. There is no physical explanation of why it's only geometrical You need to go to an upper level to explain there is no Possible physical explanation of this phenomena and the same upset there is example is this Do you really think that the French Revolution in principle could be explained by? The arrangement of the unit what kind of dream is well, so imagine imagine that we had a Insane amount of information just volumes and volumes about the position and location of every Physical constituent bit in the universe or at least on earth. Yeah You don't think there would be enough information. No, that would be much That's a point. There would be in one side I don't think maybe we couldn't sort through it No, I think it wouldn't be enough in a sense at the same time wouldn't be enough. It would be too much it wouldn't be enough because You really need to refer to Intentions and not because they are in principle Independent or mother but because they give a different Kind of causal link that is the relevant one, but it's too much in order to individuate the relevant even let's assume that you are as much as Laplace is genius in order to individuate the relevant causal Mechanisms at the subatomic level you can't You can't avoid to use the upper level. How can you identify what is relevant there? Well, I always depend on the other so let's say it's it's like learning another language Some people can read computer code and they they can sort through and kind of meta put together What's happening with the computer code? This would just be like a gigantic a code that they could read that seemed to me They could you know scientists not really think this is only philosophers that have this I mean, I don't think a physicist really think of you know explaining The theory of natural selection by looking at this thinking there is an explanation He then they can't read the computer code though. They can't they even there There are no polymon a polynomial problems that we can one ever ever be able no one would ever ever be able To solve any even in the month the would be because calculating this Problem solving these problems would be would need more time that the length of the universe Okay, so let me ask a couple questions on this. Does that mean that there are Actual causal forces that are in addition to the base level No, I what I'm saying that I would be anti realistic here I don't think that is a causal Structure of the world that is out there and it's and we are just not smart enough to understand so I don't think that is any scientific evidence that for example that this is the case For example, let's take the classic new and It's called new human interpretation accusation. What is for example Davidson on a hamper? What is a causal link? And You can describe it in all the terms you want But it's always amounts exactly what you are saying here today. Yeah, that there are two events physical events connected by a law That's what is it right a law. It's called new humane because the law is what they Founds everything So you really people think that I don't think that's the case that there are Laws that connect all causal events a causation is much more complicated think about the books by Nancy Cartwright for example about many people Galeson or gear this idea that there are laws of this kind It's just fiction. So what's your explanation for what causation is? Yeah causation is something that is not as regular as philosophers try to think there are laws are Idealizations are not out there The laws of physics as many philosophers science have tried to say if he saw The idea that Davidson and hamper had is just an idealization itself. So it's not true that every time you have a causal Relation that is a connection between physical events that explain that causal Relation I don't think I think that this is an idealization Pragmatically, it's not the case. What we have is, you know regularities that we try to understand in the Different ways, but this idea the regularities have some kind of actual causal link between them It's not just yet But one thing is that you know actual causal link generalizations and this the other idea that you can reduce all these Generalizations to a physical structural world where there are always precise determined physical laws That's I think it's a dream. I'm not saying that philosophers of science Okay, but so in your in your worldview The the when I'm talking about causality. I'm loosely talking about the That cause and effect relationship that when I perceive some phenomena in time. There's time, too. There's this Perception that I'm having there's time one. There's another perception and there seems to be this link that when I you know If I push a bottle on a table over it seems to fall and there's this regularity of okay that there's some There's some internal coherence to external phenomena that requires explanation sure so Why only physical explanation? That's my question So quite frankly, I am a duelist I'm a substance duelist. I'm way out there, but but I want to explore But depends on substance dualism on a honestly depends what you mean in some sense. I'm a pluralist, so okay When you say substance duelist, so you have all this metaphysical idea of emergence and blah blah blah that I am a little No, I actually don't it's not about emergence. So yeah, exactly the most precise way to articulate for me is I'm not a physicalist No, I'm not either. I don't think that physics can even in principle explains everything that happens, right? So we are on the same I Think on in the same group here So I'm I think it's a legend that there are out there are laws that explain a can in principle explain all causal relations We care of either directly or indirectly through a Reduction because also this reduction think about this a think about that some because this is a very clear example, right every mental State I am in it corresponds to a physical states and this physical states is the cause of another physical states for example the states that I Causing the world when I act right so the cause of relation is at the most basic level at the physical level All these reductions are how what are you saying? What what how could you reduce all the attempts to reduce? Intentional states and normative states to non-intentional states don't really work Well, let me ask you if we take the mind out of this and in your own worldview when we're just analyzing physical phenomena So the bottle being pushed over on the table not trying to reduce all phenomena to Physical law, but what is your explanation for what causality is in that kind of circumstance? I mean a repeat that we shouldn't forget that science especially the physical sciences don't use causality a lot So this idea of Explaining causality. Oh, you know causality is really at the physical level. It's not there is not causality there causality is something that Connections regularities between phenomena that we see in the world and try to understand seeing Causal relationships that of course there are but I repeat there is no one Fundamental for formal causation that seems to me. I'm a causal pluralist. Okay, so What let's maybe take the word physical out of it. So if you're a causal pluralist What are What is the causality so for something like just a purely physical phenomena something simple You know bottle falls over on the table the water pool pours out on the ground There's some coherence to that particular phenomenon. It's not just pure randomness. Yeah, of course. Why is that? Do you say there are physical laws in some case in some kind of forms of causation the best way of accounting For causation is to refer to physical laws Even if we know that physical laws are abstractions, you know always Compliment when you apply a physical law to the concrete world never works perfectly because there are in a Gigantic amount of variables that you cannot account for but it's a good approximation So if you talk about a bottle that falls the best thing is to refer to gravity or these things not doubt about that So going down this train of thought here when we're talking about laws of physical reality we have and the way that I see it we have our Conceptions of the laws we have our mental explanations of the law of gravity and so on and then Those conceptions have amazing explanatory power for explaining all kinds of phenomena I think the reason for that is because those Conceptions we have map on to the world loosely not going to be perfect right Newton's laws is not perfect But it's a very very good approximation But those laws those physical laws separate of our conception of them that we're trying to get a clear conception of What is their ontological status? What what are those things like are they in the world? Are they in some kind of a super system that you know outside of the world that somehow structures it? Yeah, I mean it seems that in the background of this question There is the old metaphysical idea that we should have a unitary view or reality. That's a one important Goal of philosophy. I think that one that doesn't work So originally people try to think in entheological terms and then mechanical terms now they have other So everything has to have a very simple explanation in principle simple as I see a scientific theory can be I think that that's misguided so of course science is the most important Cognitive tool we have and that's spectacular things but science itself. There is not such a thing as science There is not such a thing as the scientific view of the world even nowadays There are you know growing There is growing evidence that chemistry cannot be reduced to physics in an interesting sense and of course biology I repeat Are they expert so how can you even in principle principle think that you know, there's really something like the potential explanation of natural selection Referring to Subatomic entities. I don't even know what this is if not is you know a crazy dream So science itself is very plural and not to mention the social and human sciences so sociological like the birth of capitalism as you know was studied by Max Weber and others Can we really this this is his explanation so let's assume that is vaguely correct his connection with Calvin is probably not entirely correct But he has a point there and so this point could in principle be translated to a physical uh Rendered in physical with the physical concepts of physics. I don't think that makes any sense. Not even in principle But what is in principle here? I mean if we had you know 10,000 years in the future 100,000 years in the future No, no, no, that's the more in many of these problems are non polynomial So when you go to calculate these Connected things if you have to make the calculations think about this we know from physics from Newtonian physics that there are three problems a Poincare three problems problem Three three bodies problem, right? If we have three bodies is in principle cannot be calculated what the movement of these Three bodies that I have are in a gravitational relationship is in principle So we start from that. So what is in principle real here? It's a philosophical dream Let's try to you know to to think that I think the best contribution of contemporary metaphysics is to let's Abandon these big dreams and let's look. I don't I think it's right the metaphysics I'm happy the metaphysics is back in the database was abolished by the linguistics. It's back legitimately, but It has to you know to think differently really So if there are multiple causal explanations for phenomena that aren't reducible to one another Still though, what is the ontological status of those? causal things so It causality is an explanatory tool, but is it is there any? Corollate in reality of any form the physical causality you have a concept of but is the concept Referent to actual when you refer to physical events is the physical events when you refer to why people do things intentionally what the reasons are these are the mental reasons the mental States that contributed to this to these sections are the the reference and all the our explanations There are I don't think there is a unifying Metaphysical structure of everything. So let me ask you if if there are different causal phenomena that can't be reduced to one another does that Are all of those different causal phenomena also and do they also have their own metaphysical and ontological status? I mean it depends how you define again if you have an idea that don't know this is debated right or for example one debate nowadays a new one is Is there only one sense of existence? You know remember famously Aristotle said that existence is said in many ways being is said in many ways, right? And then you know modern times Quine came out with this ontological commitment principle and blah blah blah criterion And so there was the idea Being is the value of a bounded Variable and blah blah in a you know in a in a theory that is regimented and first Or the logic all these ideas of that is existence. I think this is impoverishing the world Really, and it doesn't work that way also for technical reasons Doesn't really work for first order logic is not really good in translating our best theories about the world But also and that's the main point that pattern takes from pragmatism What are our best theories? We have to explain why you are here now, right? Should we use Quantum mechanics or the theory evolution? I don't think so. These are not our best theories for it You know for explaining why you are here. I don't think that there is in principle A theory that would explain everything. I don't think that that's Can be believed. So in your worldview you have physical causality a physical type of existence you have mental causality mental type of existence Yes, or one of the other ones is do you have a spiritual causality spiritual type I mean that's much more if I tend to be an liberal naturalist here So it depends on how you define spirituality if spiritual like pattern of thought of spirituality something connected with the internal mind not with you know phenomena that are in contradiction with the scientific world or miracles or these things it It's talked in this way you're spiritually in this sense. I think Spirituality has a place in the world, but again, they attempt to reduce all this phenomena to ontology to an ontological explanation What are there other ontological? So when you say you're a pluralist how big is your I mean for example, I Moderately tend to accept the idea there are abstract entities abstract entities are different ontological status by from materials You mean like numbers or concepts or yeah Yeah, or some of this can of course be taken for real for several reasons right for They have an existence that is not our kind of existence and now is space time Also, I think there are agents but there are organeers that are not just the some of their Cells or they are molecular the molecular that really compose them. So So what are they when that's interesting when you're like like What are the agents and is the organism? Is an existence in addition to its physical constituent particles? Yeah, of course you hear there are also the all the but I don't think the the properties sometimes Frequently agents have properties that cannot be translated in the properties of the physical constituents. So if you want to call this a different um, a different ontological entity Do it what I doubt is that there is something that you know We have that that this is the ontology of the world one big consistent picture I think that this is more of a dream. So you have a very big Pluralistic framework. Yeah, but that's very dangerous to say that there is one big Right because he's Because at that point, yeah, you have you know everything fits well with it I don't think everything fits well because you know subatomic particles fit in a way in which agents that you know make decisions because they Decide that they don't like Trump for that. It's not really they don't fit well together It's different ways different perspectives on the world. I'm curious. This is this would be such a good place to say Oh, that's a great place to end But I gotta ask you another question because this is a really interesting world view that I haven't heard before because everybody Like myself we want to cram everything into one big ontology like we can do that and it leads to all kinds of problems so when you try to explain the existence of the world in its Radically, it's like puzzle pieces that don't fit together What's your explanation for For that just the universe is that way or is there even such a thing as the universe? I mean Can you gave so I see what you mean? So did you say if I can translate there is this Cramming for a unitary explanation. Certainly there is but I think sometimes we have to resist to our you know we are Basic decides the explanations of the supposed unity are always very unsatisfactory or People now but they interact these different threads of existence all interact with one another that don't they interact But if you have the idea that you know, how can this entity interact in a mythological sense Then you have a lot of problems But if you take the idea that you have different perspective on the world Uh, and you consider some parts of the world some forms You know, there is to do in sense instead of others depending on what you are interested in Things fit better, but it is there is no way of Unifying the world in which you know, there is the ontological correspondent of Intentional explanations. There is the ontological correspondent of biological explanation the end physical explanation and then it's there These are the properties that these are the level these are I don't I don't find this very promising honestly. Do you think that there is Uh something Like the universe is that even a term that's just yeah, but even we look at physics. They don't even know if there are There is an infinity of universes So, yeah, we can dream about everything here, but this is really I would assume that there is such a thing, but it's What it is is, you know Let's let's live to the physicists to talk about the physical universe I think as a philosopher. I don't think I'm entitled to add much to what they say This has been great. I really appreciate you taking the time and talking with me. Thank you very much All right, that was my interview with professor mario de caro Yes, the mario de caro who has an asteroid named after him Hope you guys enjoyed it and found it provocative I certainly did as rare as duelists are Pluralists are even rarer. So I got a lot of really exciting things coming up in 2017 I'll be sharing with you over the next couple of weeks after the release of my latest book square one the foundations of knowledge Which you can pick up on amazon I've had more time to shoot videos and writing some articles So check out my youtube channel youtube.com slash steve thought and I have started again posting weekly videos there So that's all for today. I'll talk to you guys next week