Maybe you posted such links in your responses to other posters, but I don’t necessarily give those posts the same attention as those addressed to myself. I don’t see any such links in your responses to me, so if you’ve made them elsewhere please provide the links. So now that you’ve reaffirmed that our definitional assumptions of determinism are in agreement, how do you explain any element of freedom where definitionally it cannot exist? That definition that we both presumably agree on, through logical extention leads to the the understanding that freedom of anything is incompatible with that definition. We endorsed the logical implications of the agreed upon definition of determinism because we’re trying to remain logically consistent in the interpretation of that definition. If we were tasked with assuming indeterminism, there’d be a reasonable expectation to consistently align with that definition. It doesn’t matter what example of human choice you care to present, because as implied by the agreed upon definition of determinism, the action that you define as choice, or decision made by the human entity, was actually decided by the predetermined nature of the entire system. So in our defined deterministic system, there is never actual decisions to be operationally made, because the system has already made them in advance. Your posted inconsistencies say otherwise. As is your take up until the point where you assume that the driver has actual options. If every aspect of your traffic light scenario is essentially predetermined(scripted) by the universe, then all of the action, including the changing traffic light, the perception of it by the driver, every aspect of their neurological processing, the resultant human manipulation of the car, and the car’s interaction with the road, are all fully determined actions that had no freedom to do otherwise in that determined system. In that whole description of the event, there were no options to choose from, there was only singular action to be followed. The problem with your interpretation is that you have isolated the action of choice from the predetermined causal chain that defines it. There is an appearance of choice to humans prior to an event because they have incomplete knowledge of that complete causal chain. The mechanisms that determines the action defined as choice are not determined by a set of immediate conditions, but by that of the complete action and determined nature of the universal whole. Every instant of human action in a determined system was predetermined from the outset, as was the action of the environments that they exist in. Look at the the narrow focus of your example. You say note the drivers capabilities without having sufficient knowledge of those capabilities in regards to how they can actually be expressed in relation to the actual determined elemental parameters of the event. We always only observe what has been determined to be observable, just as we always act in a manner that has been determined to be actionable. We don’t get to choose any of it in a determined system.