But if it is, agency is not removed, despite your argument .
The point however is that an agent that takes an action is succesfully using their will. If you put in yourself into a situation knowing what you will choose
If there is only one thing you can choose, as a result of determinism, then you lack freedom of choice in the libertarian sense. Whether you know what you will choose is not very relevant.
That did make me hone my intuitions. I appear to have implicitly assumed that causing will have a single effect. But I would actually be somewhat fine with multiple mutually exclusive effects as long as there is “effection structure” (which I am less sure what it even means). But having the options open because “missing implementation” is not fine. If your plan is “2. ???? 3. PROFIT” it is not a plan at all.
The choice of what options are permissible is clearly an agentic choice. But I have a hard time swallowing that a truly random step could be a part of a things “character”. If rain conditions on whether I will take a umbrella with me, its the athmosphere which is a not-me that is deciding between those scenarios (I can only decide that I am going to sensibly monitor the rain). The coin flip if it is not pseudorandom I would be unsure but lean on that it is not part of the strategicing or decision process. Yet at the same time it feels like a bit of my body could have such flakey character, which could on principle be part of the cognitiive machinery. Feels like it needs to be noised and can’t make for a structural part for the actual function of it.
But if it is, agency is not removed, despite your argument .
If there is only one thing you can choose, as a result of determinism, then you lack freedom of choice in the libertarian sense. Whether you know what you will choose is not very relevant.
That did make me hone my intuitions. I appear to have implicitly assumed that causing will have a single effect. But I would actually be somewhat fine with multiple mutually exclusive effects as long as there is “effection structure” (which I am less sure what it even means). But having the options open because “missing implementation” is not fine. If your plan is “2. ???? 3. PROFIT” it is not a plan at all.
The choice of what options are permissible is clearly an agentic choice. But I have a hard time swallowing that a truly random step could be a part of a things “character”. If rain conditions on whether I will take a umbrella with me, its the athmosphere which is a not-me that is deciding between those scenarios (I can only decide that I am going to sensibly monitor the rain). The coin flip if it is not pseudorandom I would be unsure but lean on that it is not part of the strategicing or decision process. Yet at the same time it feels like a bit of my body could have such flakey character, which could on principle be part of the cognitiive machinery. Feels like it needs to be noised and can’t make for a structural part for the actual function of it.