Why does the Rabbi think that man has free choice?

Why does the Rabbi call it an assumption? Is it an assumption that a person does not know what is going on in his mind? It is a fact.

“Why don't you demand that in order to say that a person does not choose freely, we must know the entire causal chain that caused his decision?”
Of course, I will demand this of anyone who comes and claims that there is no free choice.

As far as I am concerned, it is a pishita that nowadays, a person who thinks seriously about the matter should come to the same conclusion, that it is much more likely that there is no free choice, because all things have reasons, and there is no serious reason to exclude choice from the rule.

My question is what makes the Rabbi think the opposite, that is, the opposite of the pishita of common sense. Apparently there is something in the pishita that I do not know then that the Rabbi will discover. And even more difficult is that in other places the Rabbi denies God's intervention in nature, why is God forbidden to violate the laws of nature and man is allowed to?

I have not been able to understand the connection to the political-social-legal libertarian view in which a person can do whatever they want. My questions are about the physical-factual-scientific reasons that led to what they want.

Shorten it, Pishita, instead of baffling your intelligence, do yourself a favor and read the ‘Science of Freedom’. However, the article that shortens it, and is found on the website

No. The assumption is that in order for a person to be a libertarian, he needs to know all the mental processes that occur in him. This is of course absurd. And I have already noted that on the other hand, for some reason, you do not demand this. And the ridiculous psychological reduction that you make to theologians is just baseless speculation (but you are apparently allowed to speculate without a basis).
What makes me think this is an immediate perception that I have free choice. And this is much clearer and stronger than anything else I see or experience. There is no need for additional evidence. The burden of proof is on the one who thinks that this experience is an illusion. Just as the burden of proof would be on a person who says that my vision is an illusion and does not reflect the world.
I did not deal with political-social approaches. Libertarianism in this discussion is the perception that a person has free will.
If you would like to understand my position better, you can read the article here on the website or in my books on the Sciences of Freedom. There I explained things in detail.

So the Rabbi takes a view from the emotion: “Because I feel this way, it is so in reality”. But there is no dispute about this, everyone feels that they have free choice, in this there are no differences between people, determinists and non-determinists, skeptics and believers, everyone feels the same feelings.

But this is not a philosophical thought, this is an emotion.

(A person who suddenly feels a craving for a certain food. Without knowing why. Would the Rabbi claim that this craving just happened without any physical reason in reality? A free craving?)

The philosophical thought only strengthens this emotion: “Of course you will feel this way, it is impossible for you to feel otherwise, you could not feel otherwise, this feeling that you are free is forced on you. Why? Because you do not know and are not aware and do not feel the processes that led you to choose what you choose.”
But the same thought also says that reality is not determined by this or that emotion, but by findings and facts. And as far as we know, in our world, things have reasons, and this also includes the things that a person experiences and feels, things have reasons. And there is no serious philosophical argument that shows that there is something special and different in the emotion of choice from other processes. Only the ego that one must be wary of, that wants to feel free and superior, and therefore every claim that is in favor of the ego must be investigated and examined. This is the perception of common sense.

Approaches and positions do not interest me so much, that is less interesting, reality is not affected by what this or that person thought throughout history. I was just asking why the rabbi does not follow common sense in this matter.

The ridiculous psychological reduction that I make to theologians is very well-founded. Because this alone explains why theologians are alarmed every time human dignity is put to the test. The truth does not interest them. Only their dignity. The truth is in the service of the ego. For example, the theologian will cry out when someone comes and claims that his ancestors were some kind of ape. The theologian prefers to think that he is the handiwork of God. Truth does not interest him, only honor and ego. The theologian is a ridiculous creature who uses reason in the service of honor.

Who talked about emotion?! I recognize that I have free will just as I see the wall in front of me. It is recognition (=intuition) and not emotion (emotion). I am definitely following common sense here. Determinism is a falsifiable and delusional position in my opinion (on the intellectual level. Regardless of religiosity, emotions and psychology).
I see no point in addressing the rest of the ridiculous arguments you repeat regarding theologians. Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it true.
I think we have exhausted it.

Any mental process that is not a thinking process is an emotion for this matter. And it doesn't matter if you call it cognition, intuition, or any other mental process. The fact that you see that you are standing in front of a wall does not stem from reason, but from processes of vision, which is a type of emotion for all intents and purposes (with a lot of information, which is why we don't call it an emotion).

I would believe you that this is common sense if you knew nothing about the world and only knew your inner feelings. But since you know things about the world, then you know that things have reasons. Therefore, your belief in your free choice is contrary to common sense. Apparently, regarding free choice, you consciously choose to ignore the obvious fact that things have reasons, and then you are left with only emotion.

The matter has nothing to do with determinism, but with the consideration of what is reasonable. If the Rabbi had revealed a reason that made it more reasonable to think that there is free choice, I would immediately change my mind and think that there is free choice. But you have not discovered anything of the sort, the feeling you described is well-known and familiar and there is nothing unique about it, and as we have seen, it has no weight at all for the factual argument because it was necessary to feel it that way. The only reason left is to save human dignity.

It is also not at all clear why the Rabbi uses all sorts of concepts from foreign fields to describe human freedom. When God tells Adam to eat from every tree of the garden, he grants him complete freedom, what more is needed than that. Libertarians did not invent freedom.

Causality does not negate freedom of choice. When a person is faced with two options, each option has a reason and the person chooses which reason to go with.

Daniel, you are wrong. A cause is a sufficient condition for a cause. And the principle of causality states that everything (!) has a cause.

Rabbi Shalit”a, he is referring to the principle of sufficient reason

If so, then fine. What's new here?

No, but in my opinion this is the depth of Daniel's simplicity. And Ockham's words are well known. And so in the Poskim it is good to twist the language from the explanation.

Daniel ignores the act of choice itself. What is the reason that led the person to choose one of the two options?

And not only that, the story begins long before the final decision process. In the process in which the person decides how many options he has. Both the initial filtering of the options and the final decision have a reason.

(The person may think that because he uses fresh and fresh scales to reach the final decision and that because the mind is not subject to any external constraint, then the decision is free. But this is simply a lack of understanding of the concept of free choice, which includes freedom from any constraint, even from mental constraints.)

You're such a chatterbox. Go read the book.

A poem, you can also give the reading recommendation without the superlatives (and preferably with the book title: The Sciences of Freedom)