I fully understand the logic you propose.
First of all, I meant that you don't understand logic in general, let alone my argument, because you don't recognise fallacies and, what's more, you don't seem to care.
But it is flawed because it fails to reflect our reality.
Baseless assertion.
Anybody's ability to understand logic is entirely dependent on their conscious freedom to manipulate their own thought processes in order to consciously contemplate the logic in question.
Motte-and-bailey again. What is being disputed is the ability to have done differently without randomness - not our ability to consciously contemplate.
Trying to pretend that one is the same as the other, without ever producing a connecting argument, is dishonest.
The scenario you propose does not allow any mechanism for conscious manipulation of thoughts because every event involved in such thought processes will be entirely defined by previous events which will be outside the scope for interaction from your present state of conscious awareness.
Straw man and
false dilemma fallacies. It is a misrepresentation to say that my view does not allow "conscious manipulation of thoughts" (to the extant that even makes any sense, which it doesn't if taken literally). And you have made no argument that says any conscious process cannot also be "entirely defined by previous events".
And, no matter how many times you repeat it, the "present state of conscious awareness" is still meaningless gibberish.
The more you try to consciously try to justify your scenario, the more evidence you provide for your own conscious freedom to manipulate your own thoughts...
And back to the dishonest pretence that human cognition is the same thing as being able to have done differently (without randomness).
...a freedom which cannot exist within the time dependent chains of pre determined cause and effect in material reactions.
Yet again: if you could make your notion of freedom make
logical sense (which you seem utterly unable to do), then you couldn't claim that it cannot be a physical process without claiming to know
everything about the physical world.
So, again, it seems that you don't even have a basic grasp how to construct a sound logical argument, without falling into multiple fallacies, dishonest misrepresentation, and false equivalences.
How about finally admitting it?
