That's an exceedingly nice analogy. Bravo! for it.

But in relation to my previous argument, I would suggest that while consciousness might be put forward as the unique attribute of a player, thought is very much a mechanical process of 0s and 1s. — unenlightened

One issue that can be raised: Might not an individual consciousness ontically create some of the mechanical process of its own thought? In so thinking, the issue becomes one of whether there is any degree of mind over matter involved in our existence. If we are to any small degree masters of our fate. If free will, then the answer becomes "yes" - with many details remaining to be worked out. If no free will, then there is a resounding "no" to these questions.

This is a bit tangental, but might give another perspective on the source of freedom ...

http://accountability.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/files/2016/08/Philosophy-of-Education-Chapter-2_-Pedagogy-of-the-Oppressed.pdf — unenlightened

Skimmed through the chapter. I find myself in agreement with what I've read. Such as (taken from the concluding paragraph):

Problem-­posing education does not and cannot serve the interests of the oppressor. No
oppressive order could permit the oppressed to begin to question: Why? — Paulo Freire

In which ways do you find this relevant to the topics of this thread?

Might not an individual consciousness ontically create some of the mechanical process of its own thought? — javra

Yes indeed. The player creates input data to the machine; the spiritual being provokes human thought and human action that would not happen otherwise.

In which ways do you find this relevant to the topics of this thread? — javra

In the odd suggestion that the individual is not the locus of freedom after all, but the communication in dialogue. In the idea from Fromm, that the authoritarian is necrophilic, the enemy of 'life', which in context can be seen as equivalent to freedom. But Maybe one day I'll start a Friere thread if I'm feeling bold.