No. The text clearly shows that human free choice is essential. The issue is, what is an epistemically justified choice, i.e., one we can know is justified. Then we can freely choose that alternative.

it seems you are suggesting that free will is determined by perceived 'wrongness'- we can be wrong and therefore have free will. i would say that is a moral attitude to begin with. to assume a 'rightness' that is devoid of morality is contradictory to the term itself. to attempt to judge if the conditions fulfil the criteria creates instant failure of the conditions.

further, if there is only one non-moral, or 'absolute' method of living, then we are bound to observe this and in doing so create fatalism.

that seems to be your goal- to create irrefutable, non-moral fatalism.

you seem to want a fractal expression of free will- an equation that has no parameters.

you must fail, by your own criteria. still, if you can do it with enough flair, you might impress your tutor...

i'd enjoy arguing this with you further, though.

beans

ps: asimov wrote children's fairy stories.

you're at flinders? i'm in west beach.

it's a small world, but i wouldn't want to paint it...

beans

Yes, we're both here in little old Adelaide. But the real issue, discussed in the book, is: is there a way of living we can know is justified. I argue that it is, but that, e.g., we can know it is justified to have total freedom in certain areas.

such as the freedom to open and close our mouths when we want? to open and close our mouths is both justifiable and most unlikely to be irrational. but that is action within a set and therefore not free, but tethered to the possibilities within the set 'open/closed mouth'. any descision is subject to the options that form the criteria.

b