If there were no free will, the mind would be incapable of making any kind of decision, because a decision is an instance of free will. And the definition of a mind is the seat of intelligence - i.e. the decision making process. Without free will, the mind would be bound only to observe the world and never act upon it, so as a means to explain human behaviour and abilities it accounts for nothing.
(, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:23, archived)
Decision-making is only one part of the mind, along with consciousness, memory, imagination etc.
It's possible that we should have the perception of decision-making without actually making any decisions.
(, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:28, archived)
memory, imagination and consciousness.
I don't think it goes along side them like you suggest.
"Perception of decision making" is a nonsense. You are still making a decision, even if you don't act on that decision.
(, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:31, archived)
that all of my actions and experiences, including my perception of decision-making, are causally determined by something other than me, so even if I think I could have chosen to act differently, I actually couldn't.
(, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:34, archived)
Although it's correct that all of your decisions are influenced by outside sources, they are not governed by those. The deciding factor is always your own mind, no matter how you choose to define your own mind.
I think there is only one way you will act at any point. You can think "what if I did this differently", but the point is you can never have acted differently. However, this is a result how your own mind interprets outside influences, the decisions are all your own mind's.
I'm not making sense.
*hums*
(, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:38, archived)
which is fair enough as I've never seen a really good definition of it yet.
(, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:43, archived)
but I'll give you the other two. Whether we have the perception of free will or not, the point is that without it the mind would have no influence on the world at all, even if the world could still have an influence on the mind. If that were the case, I am bound to merely spectate as my body argues about dualism. And if it is capable of that without me, what am I for?
(, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:33, archived)
I'm not claiming that it's not bizarre on this view that there should be mind as well as matter, just that it's not illogical.
(, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:37, archived)
It is necessarily impossible to disprove anything that's redundant, like invisible unicorns and teapots in space. Yes, I even used those analogies.
(, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:41, archived)
(, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:39, archived)
when he's writing them.
(, Sat 16 May 2009, 16:44, archived)