>Please show us your reasoning. It would be quite impressive if you could logically go from "choice is something" to "choice is nothing"!
I don't believe I ever even started with "choice is something." "Choice is nothing" has been my standpoint all along. It has the illusion of being something, but in reality, it is nothing.
>Because I consciously assessed a set of apparently potential actions
The key word here, as you have highlighted yourself, is apparently. They have the appearance of being potential paths for you to take, but in reality, there is only the one path, just as with the railroad car. My point, as I outlined in the example with the pool table, is that consciousness or goals as we perceive them are irrelevant. Consciousness is matter (made up of it at least,) and to say that the particles of your mind can behave any differently than the balls on a pool table and somehow choose to affect a certain outcome is as ridiculous as saying the balls can choose how they move and strike each other on the table.
>Yes, it is. If they didn't collide, the paths would be different, no?
But because the balls have been set in motion in a particular way, the collision has to occur (not counting the quantum ball for the moment,) therefore nothing is truly being "altered."
>I believe you have accepted a false dichotomy here.
Please explain to me what this dichotomy is.