Not at all. Just trouble following what you consider to be logic. I wouldn't use the word determined by, as the product is determined by the process of imagining, which adheres to the laws of physics. But the "product" (or subject) of imagination need not obey the laws of physics because it is not real. As soon as you introduce choice you need to show that choice does not need to follow the laws of physics. This is thus begging the question. If choice does follow the laws of physics, then the subject matter of the imagination is irrelevant to the question of freewill. Just because choice makes the laws of physics irrelevant to the subject matter of the imagination, does not make physics irrelevant to the process of choice. You are question begging here. And you certainly have not shown this to be sound. Your argument might be as sound as saying: 1. All pigs can fly. 2. All pigs must have wings (for how else is  possible?). You are also moving your argument of 1 from the product of imagination to, in 3, suddenly including choice and decisions with no justification, since your  does not, as explained, allow you to suddenly remove the need for obeying the laws of physics onto the process of choice. Your logic is flawed and invalid, as shown above. Merely repeating the same line of argument will not alter this assessment. If you are truly interested in taking this discussion forward you will address these criticisms. 1 and 2 do not lead to 3. You would need to add in a separate premise that the process of choice also does not follow the laws of physics. Or show how the subject (not the process) of imagination not needing to obey the laws of physics logically leads to the process of choice also not needing to. So far you have not done that. And if pigs fly then all pigs have wings. Yet your logic is flawed. Not at all. If I imagine an internal combustion engine, are you saying that this product of the imagination has no scientific explanation? There appears to be no logical extension that would get from my claim to your conclusion. You have merely stated it. If you continue from flawed logic then you can arrive at any conclusion you want. Except that as soon as you consider something unreal then it is not paranormal. Paranormal is where a real thing has no scientific explanation. If it is not real it does not exist. Something that does not exist can neither be "normal" nor "paranormal". And again you are heading down the route of triviality: "something that doesn't exist need not have a scientific explanation!"