No I can't see the logical impossibility, but judging from the other responses on the forum, I'm in good company.RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2022, 9:37 pm Thom, If you answered the main question in the OP, and then answered the follow up questions, then (hopefully) you will see the infinite regress, and the resulting logical impossibility of choosing.
If you can't understand or see the logical impossibility, then you can't. No biggie. Take care friend.
To start with, I think you have a four term fallacy in your argument because you're using the word 'choose' to refer to two different things. Which is compounded by the fact that you aren't able to explain how to distinguish between the two - 'choosing' and 'really choosing' - in any substantive way. One is supposedly an illusion and the other is 'real', but according to your assertion, the 'real' one doesn't even exist, so I'm not even clear what you mean by a 'real' choice in the first place. And your answer to my question is to refer me back to the logic. It seems to me that you're not proving anything logically, you're just playing a word game with the semantics of the word 'choose' that is nothing more than an assertion that people should be calling it by a different name, but then claiming that you've made a proof that there is no free will.
We could play that game with just about anything. For example:
Do we see the nerves that we use for seeing?
1. If no, then do we really see anything?
2. If yes, then do we see the nerves that we use in seeing the nerves that we use in seeing?
etc., etc.
*************
ANSWER: No, seeing anything is logically impossible.
If vision is the ability to see, then vision is logically impossible.
QED
Now if I say to you: "If you can't understand or see the logical impossibility, then you can't" (and no, I can't either), then we have nowhere to go, do we?
You take care too friend, enjoy your weekend.