I’ll find the Chapter myself and get back to you, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll lay all my thoughts bare… on the wherefores and whys, and how to… coz I get paid good money for doing that kinda thinking/revelations.
I’m off, to source some non may-contain seaweed sushi-sheets… even that is contaminated with may-contains, these last few years. F it!
they used to call that sophistry
but… a worker is worth their wages 
no muzzles
Science does deal with certainty or we wouldn’t be able to go to the moon. Logical validity does not prove soundness. I agree that many people throw the baby out with the bathwater. It’s tough.
_
Why people like/can’t stop talking for others… and out of turn too…
So. You are certain… but not blindly… rather, with a high degree of probability &/or valid (& sound) argument(s) that correspond to (describe) reality, that “the blueprint” is going to (but hasn’t yet) increase freedom in (as you claim) a no free-will world… but your whole argument to support it is in a book one must read and thoroughly process in order for the blueprint’s effectiveness to be more than nonsense to a person. Does that make you a Lessans presuppositionalist?
It somewhat reminds me of Christian presuppositionalism (which not all Christians hold), because despite a very strong cumulative case (incl. abduction/inference to best explanation) from natural (philosophical) theology and historical evidentialism, presuppositionalists say you have to treat God & the Bible as givens or everything else will be nonsense to you… they think you can’t be “argued into the kingdom”… despite arguments & evidence being what leads many folks to take seriously the possibility of the existence of God & Jesus’ historical Resurrection.
It’s reasonable for you to expect folks to do their own homework, and sometimes it is fun or interesting to see where ideas go when you assume them as given, but no one is going to presuppose freedom can increase in a no-free-will world. It’s a contradiction. (Sovereignty & free will are not a contradiction.)
Who are you talking about?
to every season its own
I’ll get back to you sooner, rather than later… coz this is getting quite interesting/intriguing, as to the solution to the whole dilemma.
Argued into the kingdom? Are people who are not Christians doomed? Do not answer. Just a thought.
You are mistaken. Freedom does not contradict “no free will”. Not only are you conflating two meanings of the word (which has been a problem throughout these discussions) but you are using a definition of determinism that has loopholes. Freedom increases in a no free world because it gives you more choices, more opportunities, more to do what you want, but at the same time it increases your responsibility to others. Why? Because conscience does not allow hurting others when all justification is removed. I am sure you see the significance of this if you’re a religious/righteous person.
previously you said we have choice in a no free will world, so … theory has too many wrinkles (is doomed)
No wrinkles at all. The word choice only means we have options. We can contemplate. It does not mean our choice is free when, once made, was the only choice that was possible. That is why the word choice is misleading because it denotes that we are free to choose either A or B, given meaningful differences. That’s impossible. This law is immutable and no matter how you try to prove that it’s wrong, you will see that there are no exceptions to it. You are saying in so many words that God is doomed because this is His law, not mine. 
We had this discussion two months ago:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 7#p2895367
Someone who has fully thought through what to say/do before they say/do it has no reason to say/do it differently unless they are a person who wants to appear to be an automaton pretending to be a person.
“I can haz form letters.”
You’re missing the point entirely. This is not about thinking things through before we choose. This is about the mechanism of choosing. You’re way off-track Ichhthus77. Have you followed any of my threads? Do you understand why we can only move in one direction rendering “freedom of the will” a realistic mirage? Do you understand, IOW, why we can’t choose B if A is the preferable choice?
Can I put a reductionist argument into this?
Unless an analytic interpretation can differentiate from merely appearances, which reduce toward what we assert, historically as acts of Gid, we are liable to question such acts, as those which are beyond the scope of observation, as traditionally upheld.
But with metaphysical uncertainty added to the mix, the view currently held corresponds to Shajespeares’ ingenious ultimate question, To Be or Not, x where the prior conviction conflated with it’s modern equivolant, can leave the mystery of choices as determined AND open to the options , a not too mysterious attempt.
The levels of in quiery are reduced from one to the other by an premis where both beg each other, as if they understood levels of intention as static entities.
Intention can also be viewed and understood as progressing , constructed from assumed and subsumed sources of deliberated relationships and contexts.
This is not my thread. You can put any argument forward you want but I personally am only interested in proving why man’s will is not free (according to this author) and why it’s to our benefit.
OK, I didn’t realize that, thanks Peacegirl for that , as it shows compatibilisn between subject and object(authority) added to the mix, as what conclusions may be drawn…
How do we …determine (before acting)… one choice is preferable?
By picking the choice that we believe (not others) is the best one when comparing it to the other available options. Preference is based on many factors (our environment, our history, our heredity, etc.) that come into play. The bottom line: You can’t choose what you prefer less when what you prefer more is available. This is not a hard concept to understand if you don’t have a reason to want to refute it.
Yes. And how do we freely self-determine what is the best option, rather than being driven by the strongest impulse (which may in this case be to cower to an angry mob hell-bent on crucifying an innocent)?