And it, i think, is the dirty little secret non causalists, a i think a lot of them, i think a lot of them want to be agent causalists. Ha ha, ha, ha, ha, for the very reason that you suggested you read. You read a contemporary non causalists, and a lot of the vocabulary in which they write in, i think i'm guilty of this myself, is almost an agent causal vocabulary. Because agent causalism seems highly attractive, because the agent herself, as a thing, is causing her action. When she acts freely. A, so then what's the real difference between thecausal position and the agent causal position? My sense, a, is this that a, non causalists are thinking to themselves, we can have everything we want. We can have everything an agent causalist needs. There's just no need to posit this a extra relation between the agent herself and the action we want. We both want the same thing, an we both can secure the same thing. The difference is for the non causalist, i, as a non causalist, am able to say the sort of causation that occurs in the world is the sort of causation that always occurs in the world, event causation. There's no need for anything special. By contrast, the agent causalist is trying to secure free will by positing a sort of relation. Causal relation only obtains at least the standard agent causal model case of free action. Ah, so yet, i think a lot of er non causalists are wt. They want to be agent causalist. They're sympathetic to agent causalism, and if they could make sense of agent causalism as a view, they might even gravitate towards it. But in a way, they don't think it's needed, because they think we can have everything we want in terms of agenta rol the issue we've been talking about, just by virtue of the causal relation being absent, we don't need to posit the presence of a special one in order to secure it. So i think if it's aaian, like an archam's razor type argument, exactly, i think that's the right way. Why would you want to posit an, of course, king of this from a non causal perspective, but why would you want to posit the existence of a an asort of special causal relation, one that bears between an agent as a substance and an action, if you didn't have to have it? And i think the non causalist is saying, we can have all the same stuff we want, which is a control over or action, when we act freely, without having deposit such a relation. Now true, there's an expense on the non causal part, which is that we have to countenance that the world will consist of uncaused events, uncaused actions. But er that might be something that's in fact, true, we just don't know it yet. Are

there any other potential challenges that you see for non causal libertarianism that would be worth mentioning here, i

think, in terms of challenges, a there are three main ones.