Red herrings on sale

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/07/rabbit-trail-on-pap-and-frankfort.html

"The Frankfort example has numerous problems, such as 1) there is no 'sign' beforehand indicating what the choice will be"

Irrelevant to a thought-experiment. It’s not designed to illustrate how the action can be foreknown. A thought-experiment needn’t be consistent or realistic in every respect to achieve its purpose.

"2) there's no such thing as a 'forced choice' so no device could trigger a choice"

i) That simply begs the question. Consider William James on forced options.

ii) Moreover, it's implausible. Even a choice made at gunpoint is still a choice. You could choose to be shot.

Forced choices, because they’re forced, may mitigate the responsibility of the agent, but it’s still a genuine choice.

"3) the will is part of our immaterial soul, so no physical device could monitor and manipulate it."

Once again, irrelevant to a thought-experiment. It’s not designed to illustrate dualistic interactionism. Whether or not it's consistent with dualistic interactionism is beside the point.

Dan is hawking red herrings. I prefer crab and lobster.

“For me, it's enough to choose A or not - I don't need to extend things to the ability to choose A or B."

i) A distinction without a difference. Either choosing A or not choosing A is the same as choosing between A or non-A. Which is equivalent to choosing between A or B.

ii) Moreover, if the only choice at your disposal is to choose A or not, then that can often be a classic case of a forced option. I can either give the bank robber the combination of the safe or I can refuse to give him the combination–on pain of being shot in the head.