Not the process, the freedom. This has been explained to you, and others, repeatedly. Yet you seem to see the word "illusion" and run amok with it.You have. You have denied the existence of the capabilities involved, for example. You called them "illusions".
That is indeed where the flexibility is, but there is no freedom within it - and the issue is whether there is freedom in that process, not whether the process exists or not. So no, the issue is not with the process but with the nature of the freedom within that process.Yes, it is. That is where the degrees of freedom are involved, where the willed behavior is chosen, and so forth.
Mwa ha ha ha!! Seriously? After all the countless times you have tried to use that example you are now saying that I was the one who posted it? Oh, wow, you just get funnier each day! Search for "traffic light" in the search function above and see who first used it in these threads.You were being willfully stupid, and denying things in front of you. I did not, for example, post the act of stopping as the example - that was you,
That situation has been dealt with over and over again. No key detail was changed, although key details were identified that you perhaps missed. No basics were screwed with.moving the timeline to cover your avoidance of the central issue. ("A driver approaches a traffic light - - - - " You guys have never - not once - dealt with that situation. You have always changed some key detail, screwed up the basics).
And you accuse me of denying things in front of me! Oh, the irony!
There is zero question begging, as explained to you many times, and as you yourself have amply demonstrated each time you have tried to show it as an assumption and failed (other than with your dishonest reformulation).It most certainly does not. It begs the central questions and avoids the main issues of nonsupernatural freedom.
I haven't defined anything as supernatural. It certainly is concluded as not possible in a deterministic universe. But I guess if I define "freedom" to be something else, maybe we can get comfortable that it indeed exists. Shall we do that? Oh, wait, you already have.The only freedom it points to as lacking is supernatural freedom - the decider not doing what it "must" do, the decider doing something different in exactly the same circumstances, etc. Unfortunately, that is your definition of freedom itself, your assumption of the nature of "genuine" or "actual" freedom - that supernatural ability.
Just a pity that I don't see any freedom in your definition. And just as you say that the definition originally used was not granted, yours certainly isn't. Deal with it and move on. If you want to discuss your notion, go for it. Noone is stopping you.
No, I try to treat his words as he intends them, and debate him on that.You choose to argue against the weakest presentation. And you mistake the nature of QQ's proposals, accordingly.
So despite I, and others, clarifying again and again and again, what we mean by "illusion" in this context (i.e. along the lines of appearing to work contrary to the impossible), you (and others) continue to use it differently. So while I and others consider the freedom in our free will to be illusory (because it appears to offer the freedom that is concluded as being impossible in a deterministic universe) such things as the observer, conclusions, determinism, are not illusions. There is no appearance of what has been concluded as impossible. That is why QQ's comments to Baldeee in that regard are simply wrong, and nothing more than an exercise in avoidance.(In your derision you also miss the fact that his side comments are occasionally telling - for example, that your relegation of observation to "illusion" relegates the observer as well, and all their "conclusions" and "determinism", thereby obviating your entire argument and viewpoint at one stroke. I made that same observation, back a ways - used a metaphor: snake eating its tail.)
For you to also argue the same, despite the numerous explanations of the use of the word in context, shows how little you have actually been paying attention to the conversation over the various threads.
I could consider them to be about who will win the upcoming Rugby World Cup, but that would be as fallacious. As said, I will wait for QQ to actually explain his theory, his position, his arguments, in a manner that I can understand and that makes sense to me. Until then, if I see a contradiction I will raise it with him. If I think he has misunderstood something, I will tell him. If I think he has muddled his thinking, I will point that out. If his house is built on quicksand, it is not for me to insist he move it to a place he might not want it to be. It is up to him to recognise on what he has built his house and to move it. Maybe for him it is not quicksand. Maybe it is just a thin layer of shifting sands but sound bedrock underneath, and he actually knows what he's talking about. But to tell him what he should be thinking, how he should be formulating what he is trying to get across? No, you're not here to discuss with QQ.Discussing QQ's theory is what I'm doing - starting with putting it on more solid conceptual footing. He - like you - assumes that freedom by definition cannot exist in a deterministic universe, that obedience to natural law precludes freedom. As with the naive materialists generally, that assumption screws up his arguments from the gitgo; in his case, his attempts to find a loophole via the "self" - because of that assumption he has to separate that self from the universe to find freedom in it, and he has no clear way of doing that.
But you don't have to accept that confused framing and vocabulary, simply for the advantage it gives you in argument - you could consider his points from a stronger basis.