However, if you have ever taken a look at how this multitasking actually occurs, you'll see that there is constant switching of which act receives priority.
— Metaphysician Undercover

That is exactly what I am saying, attention is switched between events, first one, then the other. But not at the same time. — RussellA

I try to test this on myself from time to time. For example, I just wrote "Four score and seven years ago" while singing Yesterday. I sang continuously. There were times when I stopped writing after one word or another, but I kept the song going, and started writing again.

I'm often amazed beyond description by the speed and scale at which things happen. So I can't guarantee I don't switch back and forth every few microseconds. But it certainly doesn't seem that that's the case.

Hmm .... I haven't been on the 'forum' for several years, but this is a good starting place for me to jump back in. :grin:

'Abstractions' are a huge can of worms, and their wriggling is very real. ... It's how biological creatures understand and apply them that can either be very useful or very dangerous (we're stepping into that danger now with AI haphazard hypostatic abstraction). ... When you understand thought as a system, you cannot possibly dismiss its very real 'existence'. — Mapping the Medium

All thoughts are mental entities or operations, hence they are private to the thinker.  The ordinary folks would say thoughts exist, but it is a vague expression.  

When X exists, it means X is a being.  Being means it has a body to present itself to other beings.  Mental operations and thoughts don't have that type of presentation.  They are invisible not just to other minds, but also to the thinker too.

The thinker will know about the thought he / she has in their mind, but cannot see the presentation.  Thoughts are only expressed via the linguistic expressions to other minds.  Thoughts can also work as the causes for actions of the thinkers.   But they can never present themselves as existence i.e. they are not the presenting beings such as the bodily structures, or bodies in the physical world.

The ordinary folks would say thoughts exist, ideas exist, numbers exist, God exist, but these expressions are all incorrect logically and ontologically speaking.

They must be corrected to say, they know numbers, use numbers to count or calculate, and have an idea to sort out the problem, thought about the incidents, can infer or understand the concept of God, or they believe or don't believe in God ... etc.  

Only the beings which are presenting themselves in visual and touchable physical or material forms exist.  Nothing else exists. Not able to tell this difference and misusing the language describing all the mental entities, concept and events as existing is the cause for all the confusions in reasoning.

I still cannot understand how a person can feel a pain and not feel a pain in their finger at the same time. — RussellA

You are changing the subject we are not talking about what the person is feeling, we are talking about the ideas that at a person has. So, as I said, if the person is just learning the word "pain", the person might have a feeling, and consider both thoughts at the same time, "this is pain", "this is not pain", not knowing whether it is pain or not pain, and trying to decide which it is. You should have no problem imagining this, in the case of a tickle or something like that, for example. The person might at the same time think "this is pain", yet "this is not pain" being unsure whether it ought to be called "pain" or not.

That is exactly what I am saying, attention is switched between events, first one, then the other. But not at the same time. — RussellA

I noticed your quoted passage from Wikipedia mentions "little" conscious effort. Little effort is still effort. So these cases of multitasking where the secondary action requires little effort, and the primary action requires much effort, refute your claims and support mine.

That's my position, where attention is directed towards one activity only. — RussellA

If one activity requires a lot of attention, and the other a little attention, this does not mean that all the attention is directed at one activity.

Even if it were impossible, as I think it is, to have a single thought about two contradictory events, this raise the question as whether it is possible to have a single thought about the relation between two contradictory events — RussellA

Again, you are changing the subject. We were talking about having contradictory ideas, at the same time, concerning one event. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand, It's called "indecision". It appears you want to deny the obvious just because it's evidence against what you believe.

I totally agree that people have contradictory ideas within their memories, but not that they are thinking about two contradictory ideas at the same time. — RussellA

Thinking about two contradictory ideas at the same time is commonly called "deliberation". The example was "should I stay or should I go". Your counter argument was that because we state these ideas one after the other, this implies that we must think them one after the other. But, as I explained, this is a faulty conclusion because thinking and stating are two very different actions with different limitations. So. I'll tell you again, you deny the obvious because it's evidence against your belief.

P1 - If Determinism is false, then my thoughts have not been determined
P2 - If Determinism is true, then my thoughts have been determined
P3 - I have the thought that I am writing this post
C1 - Therefore my thought may or may not have been determined

P1 - If Determinism is false, then my thoughts have not been determined,
P2 - I have the thought that I am writing this post
C1 - Therefore my thought has not been determined

P1 - If Determinism is true, then my thoughts have been determined
P2 - I have the thought that I am writing this post
C1 - Therefore my thought has been determined

Having a thought is not sufficient evidence for either Determinism or Free Will. — RussellA

I don't see the point to any of this. As I said, free will concerns the capacity to act, in general. Thinking is one type of act, and the question is whether having contradictory thoughts at the same time is evidence of free will or determinism. You fear that it is evidence against determinism, so you deny the obvious, that we have contradictory thoughts.

Only the beings which are presenting themselves in visual and touchable physical or material forms exist.  Nothing else exists. — Corvus

Gravity, magnetism, entropy, thermodynamics,
... Do these not exist? ....... Only physical, touchable, material forms exist? I suppose so, that is if you only limit your perspective to Secondness. I do not.

I'm often amazed beyond description by the speed and scale at which things happen. So I can't guarantee I don't switch back and forth every few microseconds. But it certainly doesn't seem that that's the case. — Patterner

Interesting experiment.

I tried writing "four" whilst speaking "four". The problem was that it took me four times as long to write "four" as to speak "four", meaning that it was difficult to know whether I was thinking about writing the word at the same time as I was thinking about speaking the word.

The distinction "exists" picks out is that between things that are more than just ideas, vs. ideas. Things that are only ideas do not exist, that is the meaning of "exists". Numbers exist, because they are more than the idea of them. Or subsist, if you like.

So, as I said, if the person is just learning the word "pain", the person might have a feeling, and consider both thoughts at the same time, "this is pain", "this is not pain", not knowing whether it is pain or not pain, and trying to decide which it is. — Metaphysician Undercover

We were talking about having contradictory ideas, at the same time, concerning one event. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand, It's called "indecision" — Metaphysician Undercover

Thinking about two contradictory ideas at the same time is commonly called "deliberation". — Metaphysician Undercover

Thinking is one type of act, and the question is whether having contradictory thoughts at the same time is evidence of free will or determinism. You fear that it is evidence against determinism, so you deny the obvious, that we have contradictory thoughts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Both indecision and deliberation require consecutive ideas. Perhaps I will stay, no, perhaps I will go.

I agree that free will requires the ability to have contradictory thoughts at the same time. The person is then free to choose between them. The question is, is this possible. If not, then Determinism becomes a valid theory.

A person feels something. They have one idea that the feeling's name is "pain", and they have another idea that the feeling's name is "not pain".

You are saying that a person can have two contradictory ideas at the same time.

I am saying that this is impossible, in that it is not possible to have the idea that something is "pain" and "not pain" at the same time.

Gravity, magnetism, entropy, thermodynamics,
... Do these not exist? ....... Only physical, touchable, material forms exist? I suppose so, that is if you only limit your perspective to Secondness. I do not. — Mapping the Medium

Good point. They don't exist at all. They are the inferred entity which were conceptualised. I don't deny the validity of the concepts. But they don't exist like the physical bodies.

Gravity applies to between objects, mass and the larger mass. It exerts in the energy form, but saying gravity exists? sounds superstitious, because it doesn't.

Remember this was what Hume said in his Treatise? There is no cause i.e. gravity. There are only the apples, and the ground. You see whenever the apple was released from the hand, it falls into the ground. And Newton inferred a force between the earth and apple, and named it as gravity. So it is an inferred concept called gravity out of the habit and custom to see the apple falling into the ground. There is no gravity. There is no cause.

And like all scientific theories and concepts, they are known to us by education and information. But they are to be toppled, denied and replaced when newly discovered theories and concepts are more making sense. Hence all scientific laws, principles, and concepts are temporary information until the newer ones replaced them. So why bother? Was it Popper who said it?

I tried writing "four" whilst speaking "four". The problem was that it took me four times as long to write "four" as to speak "four", meaning that it was difficult to know whether I was thinking about writing the word at the same time as I was thinking about speaking the word. — RussellA

I did not try writing what I was speaking so that I would not be wondering that very thing. I also suggest both things be of longer duration than one word.

I did not try writing what I was speaking so that I would not be wondering that very thing. — Patterner

The singing could have been employing a "muscle memory" rather than active thought, allowing you to carry out another task that did require an active thought.

Wikipedia - Muscle Memory

Muscle memory is a form of procedural memory that involves consolidating a specific motor task into memory through repetition, which has been used synonymously with motor learning..................................... Muscle memory is found in many everyday activities, such as playing musical instruments.

How about writing one new post to person A and telling a different new post to person B at the same time?

But they don't exist like the physical bodies. — Corvus

There is no cause.

And like all scientific theories and concepts, they are known to us by education and information. But they are to be toppled, denied and replaced when newly discovered theories and concepts are more making sense. Hence all scientific laws, principles, and concepts are temporary information until the newer ones replaced them. So why bother? — Corvus

Why bother? ... Because of the necessity of being to becoming. That is the causality of semiosis. Thirdness in action. An open system is a living system. ... Take away Thirdness and all you have is static Secondness. The habits, laws, and momentum of Thirdness exists, and Thirdness is as real as any material object manifested in Secondness. I am speaking of manifestation in describing the word 'exist'. ... As I mentioned before, if you limit your perspective to the nominalistic, self-referential Secondness starting point, you close your system to only the human standpoint of static object categorization as seen from where the individual stands. But it's extremely important to remember that we are within and manifested by the same causality of semiosis we attempt to examine. We may not be able to perceive from the same perspective as every other being, but we CAN and SHOULD recognize that we are within and manifested by the same autopoietic, folding and unfolding causality of semiosis fed by the fluid, synechistic interactions of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness. ....
"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." - Charles Sanders Peirce

The singing could have been employing a "muscle memory" rather than active thought, allowing you do carry out another task that did require an active thought. — RussellA

I'm sure at least some degree of muscle memory is involved in singing. Even with speaking. Neither as much as playing an instrument, though. Having played the piano for many years, I'm very familiar with it. An aspect of Mozart's extraordinary musical abilities was doubtless due to it. He is said to have composed pieces while performing other pieces. I would imagine that was possible because his muscle memory was so complete he wasn't thinking about the music he was performing at all. Which would free his mind for thinking about other music.

I believe singing is different. You can press a key on the piano without thinking about anything at all musical. When singing, however, you are actually producing the music. That can't be done without thinking about the music.

It's a very interesting topic. I will have to experiment on this.

I will also have to experiment in non-musical ways. I'm going to try doing some math while writing sentences. The only muscle memory that could be involved in that is the writing of individual letters, and possibly words. But there couldn't be muscle memory for entire sentences, Unless they are sentences I have written many times, like a student being punished in school by having to write something on the board 100 times. I don't remember ever having to do that, but certainly I won't pick anything that could conceivably be an example of that.

But they can never present themselves as existence i.e. they are not the presenting beings such as the bodily structures, or bodies in the physical world. — Corvus

Manifested, presenting beings acting as catalysts within a grander narrative... and that narrative exists. Otherwise, there would be no manifestation (existence), of whichever category we are speaking (Firstness Secondness Thirdness).
"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." - Charles Sanders Peirce

I'm going to try doing some math while writing sentences. — Patterner

Hopefully, not whilst driving.

Perhaps the law on the use of mobile phones whilst driving shows that even the Government accepts the difficulty in carrying out two acts both requiring different thoughts at the same time.

For example, from Drivers Domain UK

The Highway Code states that you must exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You are not allowed to use a hand-held mobile phone or similar when driving..............However, the main issue of using a mobile phone when driving is the issue of excessive cognitive load. Drivers simply can’t concentrate when driving and engaging in a detailed conversation!

In practice, it seems that humans have great difficulty in having two different thoughts at (exactly) the same time.

Merry Christmas!!! — frank

Thank you! I hope you're also enjoying the seasonal festivities.

Both indecision and deliberation require consecutive ideas. Perhaps I will stay, no, perhaps I will go. — RussellA

That you are wrong, is logically demonstrated in the following way:

Consider our example, "should I stay, or should I go". Suppose I think first "should I go?", then I relegate this thought to memory, and I start to think "should I stay?". According to your stipulation, each of these thoughts could only occur while the other is in memory, one following the other, without the two ever intermingling. This means that no thought could ever be produced which includes both of these two. Accordingly, the two could never actually be compared to each other.

One would consider "should I go", and all the merits and reasons for going, independently from "should I stay", and all of its merits and reasons. But the two distinct groups of values could never be compared, or related to each other in any way, because that would require having both of the two contradictory thoughts united within the same thought. Of course this would completely incapacitate one's ability to choose, because a person could never have the two distinct, and incompatible sets of values within one's mind at the same time. To think of one the other would have to be completely relegated to memory, Therefore the two could never be compared.

Obviously though, we do actually compare and unite contradictory thoughts within the same idea, when comparing the value of each, in order to decide. Ideas are often very complex, having many distinct ideas, as elements, united within, and nothing prevents the imaginative mind from uniting contradictory ideas. So when the person in the example, compares the value of staying as value X, and the value of going as value Y, and is able to decide one over the other, it must be the case that the two have existed together, in thought, at the same time, or else no comparison could have ever been made.

We can see this very clearly in simple arithmetic. The value assigned to "1" is inconsistent with, or contrary to the value assigned to "0". When a person says "1 is not equal to 0", it is necessary that the two contrary ideas, "1", and "0", must exist within the person's thinking, at the same time. Otherwise the person could only state the value of "1" at one time, then the value of "0" at another time, and never be able to actually compare the two, and understand that the two are contrary values. In reality therefore the entire complexity of mathematical ideas, which is constructed to compare inequalities, relies on the coexistence of contrary ideas. Without such coexistence of unequal values in one's mind at the same time, no one could understand or do any mathematics.

You are saying that a person can have two contradictory ideas at the same time. — RussellA

Yes, that is what I am saying. And, I think that any degree of serious introspection will reveal that any type of decision making would be impossible if the contradictory ideas could not actively exist within the same mind at the same time. In fact, if distinct ideas could not coexist then no relations between ideas, or comparisons between them could ever be established. But that is exactly what complex ideas consist of, comparisons and relations made concerning distinct ideas.

So the most simple logical demonstration that you are wrong, is this. The simple judgement, that two distinct ideas (such as should I stay and should I go) are contradictory, is itself a relation established between the two distinct ideas. In order to make such a judgement truthful, or accurate, the two ideas must be compared (i.e. exist together in the mind at the same time) or else any such judgement would be arbitrary or random. Therefore if one contrary idea could only come into the mind after the other left, it would be impossible to even judge, in any way other than a random guess, that the two are contradictory. To judge them as contradictory requires that both actively coexist within the mind at the same time, to be able to decide that the two fulfill the criteria of "contradictory".

One would consider "should I go", and all the merits and reasons for going, independently from "should I stay", and all of its merits and reasons. But the two distinct groups of values could never be compared, or related to each other in any way, because that would require having both of the two contradictory thoughts united within the same thought. Of course this would completely incapacitate one's ability to choose, because a person could never have the two distinct, and incompatible sets of values within one's mind at the same time. To think of one the other would have to be completely relegated to memory, Therefore the two could never be compared. — Metaphysician Undercover

You make a strong argument.

I agree, as you argue, that if there are two contradictory ideas "should I go" or "should I stay", in order to be able choose between them, I must first fuse or unite them into a single idea. It then follows that I have in my mind two contradictory ideas at the same time.

However, consider the following:

At 1pm, I go.
At 12.50pm, I have the two ideas "should I stay" or "should I go".
Free Will means that at 12.50pm I could equally stay or go at 1pm.
Determinism means that at 12.50pm it has already been determined that I go at 1pm.

If Determinism is the case
1) It has already been determined at 12.50pm that I go at 1pm
2) This means that no decision needs to be made at 1pm whether to stay or to go, as the decision has already been made prior to 1pm.
3) This means that it is not necessary to choose between two contradictory ideas at 1pm.

If Free Will is the case
1) At 12.50pm, I have two contradictory ideas, "should I stay" or "should I go".
2) At 1pm, these two contradictory ideas have been fused into the single idea "should I stay or go" in order to allow me to be able to choose between the two possibilities.

Summary
It is observed that I go at 1pm
As you say, Free Will can only account for my going at 1pm by fusing two contradictory ideas into a single idea in order to be able to make a choice between them.
However, Determinism can also account for my going at 1pm without any necessity to fuse two contradictory ideas into a single idea.

By Occams Razor, Determinism is the simplest explanation, as it doesn't require the metaphysical problem of how two contradictory ideas may be fused into a single idea.

The simple judgement, that two distinct ideas (such as should I stay and should I go) are contradictory, is itself a relation established between the two distinct ideas. In order to make such a judgement truthful, or accurate, the two ideas must be compared (i.e. exist together in the mind at the same time) or else any such judgement would be arbitrary or random. Therefore if one contrary idea could only come into the mind after the other left, it would be impossible to even judge, in any way other than a random guess, that the two are contradictory. To judge them as contradictory requires that both actively coexist within the mind at the same time, to be able to decide that the two fulfill the criteria of "contradictory". — Metaphysician Undercover

I hope no one minds if I interject something here. Perhaps it might be useful? If not, just ignore me and proceed. :)

Secondness also takes place in thought. The process of thinking is a dialogue within the self, where ideas bump up against each other creating a reactionary momentum, pushing ideas (and subsequent motion, physical movement) into expressiveness. When we think, we are having a dialogue between the self of a moment before and the self currently manifesting (coming into being) in time and space. Since it is constantly changing along with us, the current aspects of time and space influence our thought as the previous thought melds into the changes manifesting in the current. All of the cells in our bodies are engaged in this, as are all beings we influence and are influenced by.

Hopefully, not whilst driving.

Perhaps the law on the use of mobile phones whilst driving shows that even the Government accepts the difficulty in carrying out two acts both requiring different thoughts at the same time. — RussellA

I plead the 5th.

In practice, it seems that humans have great difficulty in having two different thoughts at (exactly) the same time. — RussellA

Indeed. I'm sure it can be done to at least some degree, even if not to that which people generally assume. There's definitely a lot of jumping back and forth very quickly taking place.

You make a strong argument. — RussellA

Thank you RussellA, I take back what I said about you refusing to acknowledge things which are contrary to your belief.

If Determinism is the case
1) It has already been determined at 12.50pm that I go at 1pm
2) This means that no decision needs to be made at 1pm whether to stay or to go, as the decision has already been made prior to 1pm.
3) This means that it is not necessary to choose between two contradictory ideas at 1pm. — RussellA

This is why any rational person will reject determinism. It means that choice is not real, and this implies that we do not need to deliberate or weigh options. And if we do not do this we will be overcome by various forces, and rapidly exterminated.

However, Determinism can also account for my going at 1pm without any necessity to fuse two contradictory ideas into a single idea. — RussellA

Sure, but believing in determinism is by this description, a belief that choice is impossible. This would also mean that only an irrational person (a person who believes that doing the impossible is possible) would even attempt to make a choice if that person believed in determinism. Therefore the person who believes in determinism, in order to be consistent with one's believe, would not choose to do anything, would be overcome by forces, and would be dead very soon.

By Occams Razor, Determinism is the simplest explanation, as it doesn't require the metaphysical problem of how two contradictory ideas may be fused into a single idea. — RussellA

Sure, and not choosing to do anything is simpler than having to choose, and dying is simpler than having to stay alive. Therefore by Occam's Razor we should all believe in determinism, choose to do noting, be dead soon, and get it over with.

I'm sure it can be done to at least some degree, even if not to that which people generally assume. — Patterner

Having a multitude of different thoughts at exactly the same time, is exactly what a complex concept is. Consider a relatively simple complex concept, like "right angle triangle". That concept consists of "triangle", which is itself complex, and also "right angle" which is complex. So there's a number of different ideas tied up in understanding "right angle triangle". Now consider "Pythagorean theorem". This consists not only of "right angle triangle", but a bunch more ideas about the relationships between the lengths of the sides of that type of triangle. It appears that to adequately understand "Pythagorean theorem", a person must be able to have all these ideas in one's mind at the same time.

But this brings up the issue of the use of symbols. One symbol can adequately replace a complex concept, which consists of a number of united ideas. So the spoken word "triangle" for example is one aural symbol which represents a number of ideas. Then, when we think in words, the one word can stand in for a number of ideas, instead of needing to have all those ideas in the mind at the same time. I think that this, in a sense, is "the meaning" of a word, a complex relation of ideas which the word itself substitutes for in the act of thinking.

Why bother? ... Because of the necessity of being to becoming. That is the causality of semiosis. Thirdness in action. An open system is a living system. ... Take away Thirdness and all you have is static Secondness. The habits, laws, and momentum of Thirdness exists, and Thirdness is as real as any material object manifested in Secondness. I am speaking of manifestation in describing the word 'exist'. — Mapping the Medium

Maybe we could analyse different modes of existence? I still believe that physical existence is different from the conceptual existence. There are many entities and objects we describe as "existence" or "existing", but not visible or audible to our sensory organs such as God, Numbers and all the abstract entities. They only exist in our minds, and we just communicate about them and on them via language.

Manifested, presenting beings acting as catalysts within a grander narrative... and that narrative exists. Otherwise, there would be no manifestation (existence), of whichever category we are speaking (Firstness Secondness Thirdness).
"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." - Charles Sanders Peirce — Mapping the Medium

Manifestation could be a good word for some abstract entities. Instead of saying "X exists", X manifested sounds more logical. I heard of some narratives, and I know some narratives, I could tell you a narrative for something, but narratives exist? I am not sure, if they exist anywhere in the world.

Having a multitude of different thoughts at exactly the same time, is exactly what a complex concept is. Consider a relatively simple complex concept, like "right angle triangle". That concept consists of "triangle", which is itself complex, and also "right angle" which is complex. So there's a number of different ideas tied up in understanding "right angle triangle". Now consider "Pythagorean theorem". This consists not only of "right angle triangle", but a bunch more ideas about the relationships between the lengths of the sides of that type of triangle. It appears that to adequately understand "Pythagorean theorem", a person must be able to have all these ideas in one's mind at the same time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, all you say is certainly right. However, can you look at that paragraph of yours that I quoted and write it on paper, or type it, while doing fairly simple math? Something along the lines of 673x8. Or 435+62+787. It seems to me the things you are taking about are related ideas. One thing building on the other. But there's no connection between writing those sentences and sound math problems. Thinking entirely different types of thoughts is more difficult, and possibly impossible beyond a certain level of complexity.

Sure, and working out complex problems is where the use of symbols is very effective, for the reason I just explained. That's why mathematics, which employs symbols, is the means by which very complex problems are worked out.

But I would say that the use of symbols is what enables advanced thinking to work with entirely different types of ideas at the same time. And that's exactly what complex mathematics is doing, combining completely different types of thoughts by establishing relations of value. So, I believe that "higher levels of complexity" in a sense, actually refers to "thinking entirely different types of thoughts" at the same time, if we allow the condition that the different thoughts are just represented by symbols, rather than the whole idea being thought of in completion. For example, "mass" and "acceleration" are completely different types of ideas, which are combined in the conception of "force", which is a complex concept, but made quite simple, and easy to use with f=ma.

heard of some narratives, and I know some narratives, I could tell you a narrative for something, but narratives exist? — Corvus

My usage of the word 'narrative':
A causality of semiosis that results in a representamen of a situation or process, and in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching momentum.

This is why any rational person will reject determinism. — Metaphysician Undercover

A brave statement to call everyone from Heraclitus to Aristotle to Hume to Dennett not rational people.

Wikipedia - Determinism

Determinism was developed by the Greek philosophers during the 7th and 6th centuries BCE by the Pre-socratic philosophers Heraclitus and Leucippus, later Aristotle, and mainly by the Stoics. Some of the main philosophers who have dealt with this issue are Marcus Aurelius, Omar Khayyam, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Baron d'Holbach (Paul Heinrich Dietrich), Pierre-Simon Laplace, Arthur Schopenhauer, William James, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Ralph Waldo Emerson and, more recently, John Searle, Ted Honderich, and Daniel Dennett.

===============================================================================

Sure, but believing in determinism is by this description, a belief that choice is impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

True
===============================================================================

an irrational person (a person who believes that doing the impossible is possible) — Metaphysician Undercover

True
===============================================================================

This would also mean that only an irrational person (a person who believes that doing the impossible is possible) would even attempt to make a choice if that person believed in determinism..................................Therefore the person who believes in determinism, in order to be consistent with one's believe, would not choose to do anything, would be overcome by forces, and would be dead very soon....................Therefore by Occam's Razor we should all believe in determinism, choose to do noting, be dead soon, and get it over with. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not true.

If a person believes in Determinism, not only i) do they believe that their choices have been determined but also ii) it has been determined that they do make choices.