>>12167566>No, I perceive it and you assume my perception is an assumption.No, you assume it and you assume your assumption is a perception. If you perceived it you would easily be able to describe what it even is. But all you've described is perceiving choice.
>How do you know?By elimination. Everything that you are made of is either controlled by causal factors outside of yourself or by random molecular action. Something outside of you controlling you is not in your control and random action is not in your control.
>That makes 0 sense. Earth spinning is something that happens and can be seen to happen. Does that mean that earth spinning is a choice?You are confusing a description for a definition. A dog is an animal, but not all animals are dogs.
>You keep insisting upon the distinction between a choice and a free choice when obviously there is one.I already told you what the distinction is, control. A computer chooses which bits to flip but it doesn't control that choice, it has to make choices according to its program, which is controlled by something else. Does a computer have free will?
>A choice is not a choice if it's not free.If that's the case then there are no choices and what you perceive isn't a choice, it's just a program running. But this is purely seems semantics. A choice is simply a selection from multiple possibilities. Every time a computer program runs it makes a choice between two possible states of each bit.
>What the fuck are you even talking about, retard? I am talking about your conflation of perceiving a choice and perceiving control over that choice. Read the conversation again.
>It's not useless since YOUR whole argument depends on drawing a border around yourself that most people don't accept.What is the border then that most people accept? Does it contain events that occurred before you even existed? Does it contain everything?