Ok, let's get serious!
It's obvious who I'm replying to if you read the old thread.
>Where you believe I have accepted a false dichotomy, I believe you are continuously contradicting yourself.
Do you have any reason for this belief? What do you think of Nozick's thermostat example?
>For the issue of whether the balls on the table are "altered" or not, I believe that's just an issue of semantics
They are altered. Their nature (velocity) changes because of their interactions. This is a (meta)physical issue, methinks.
>Remember, a mind is made up of particles just like balls on a table, the only difference is that they are configured in such a way that they give self awareness, and the appearance of will, but these particles are still subject to all of the same laws as matter everywhere.
Correction: actual will.
>So tell me, what is the special process that you believe occurs, in total violation of the laws of physics, that allows a "conscious" mind (essentially made up of billiard balls) to be able to "choose" to manipulate matter in some way that balls on a table are not?
There is no violation. Volition is a kind of causality, not an exception to it (to paraphrase Leonard Peikoff (uh-oh!)).
This is choice:
-I have beliefs and desires (my brain is arranged a certain way due to new sensory input, and prior influences)
-I consciously assess various ideas for what action to take, according to my goals, beliefs and desires (brain does stuff with itself, resulting in 'thought')
-I come to a conclusion, the decision is now made (my brain has changed part of its identity)
(then, hopefully, I act upon my decision)
That's what choice is, that's all it is (in general terms, I mean, since you could look deeper into neurology and break the steps down further). That the mental depends on the physical does not take anything away.
Billiard tables are not conscious.