AB,
But physically defined determinism does not produce any type of free will.
Of course it does, but just not of the incoherent type you’d like to to be.
An illusion of free will is not free will, because it is an illusion.
But for practical purposes it’s still “free”
so far as the person exercising it is concerned. That ultimate, unfettered freedom is logically impossible doesn’t change that. To borrow torri’s example from a while back, the prisoner in a jail with walls so far away he never sees them still thinks himself to be free as you or me. That’s his reality, just as the workaday impression of “free” will is ours.
So your comparison makes no sense, and my argument therefore can't be categorised as argumentum ad consequentiam
Nope. It’s precisely an
argumentum ad consequentiam for the reasons that have been explained to you again just now and many times before that.
Worse, in your reply before the one I’m replying to here you did it again:
Random has no part in self awareness or consciously driven acts of will.
Self awareness is defined by your present state of mind, over which we have conscious control. The alternative is to pass all control over to nature and consign ourselves to be nature's puppets.
The alternative isn’t to be ”nature’s puppets” at all but, even if it was, that you don’t like that does not for one moment validate the
argumentum ad consequentiam you just attempted. It’s just the “If gravity, then apples will fall on my head. I don’t like apples falling on my head, therefore gravity is false” construction you keep collapsing back into.
