Do you believe in free will?

[genkaus]

The non-material subject I am referring to incorporates the aspects of both the conscience and consciousness - it is simply that which gives us awareness - let's call it the mind to avoid further confusion. The mind which I am presenting is not a conceptual abstract, rather it is what creates the conceptual abstracts. The mind governs our interactions with reality in so much as it is the only way in which we can perceive and act in correlation with what we 'know' to exist and be true.

So, you are proposing three categories of metaphysical existence - material, abstract and mental (the one you refer to as "the mind"). You see the third one as a separate category in and of itself, but that does not clarify any other details regarding its existence. Unless you can specify how it interacts with the other two forms of reality, there is no reason to even consider its separate existence.

This mind is that which allows our existence in a material construct. It is not the material construct which allows for the existence of the mind. As we perceive the material world, a brain is necessary to carry the mind, but without the mind our identity would be null and void. It is what separates us, as identities, from the material world (and all of its attributes).

You contradict yourself. As you have maintained, the mind is dependent upon the brain for its existence and it does not outlast the brain. In that case, it is the material construct which would allow for the existence of the mind.

What is my justification for these assertions? What evidence do I have to support my premises? Can I be sure that I am correct?

If the mind is that which gives us awareness, then what are we being aware of? Surely it must be the material world as it exists around us, but what then of differing perceptions of existence? It cannot be valid that we both perceive the material world differently if only the material world exists (objectively and determined for everyone). What then allows for this? The mind offers an alternative to this dilemma. If we have differing perceptions of the material world as it exists, then perhaps it is not as objective as once thought. Perhaps reality is merely a conceived notion which may or may not match the 'true' material world closely.

I do not doubt that the material world exists, but I cannot justify that it is objective, or that it 'exists' as I perceive it after my mind ceases... Where does this take the discussion as it relates to free will? If the mind creates the material world as we (as identities) perceive it, then surely we (as identities) can affect it without being confined to our perceptions - thus the idea of free will.

Here's where you start going demonstrably wrong. Reality refers to the material world. What is true and what is not is determined by correspondence to that world. A true material world is a redundant expression.

The differences in perception do not affect the objectivity of the material world. They are due to the differences in the mechanism of perception. This explanation more than accounts for the differing perceptions of the material world - it also accounts for the same perceptions. Your explanation does not address why two people with completely different minds would perceive the same thing.

As I see it, your error comes from two faulty premises. Firstly, you sate, in contradiction to your earlier statement, that mind's existence is not allowed for by material construct. Second, in order to account for differing perceptions of an objective phenomena, instead of the more obvious solution of different mechanisms of perception, you go for the untenable position of attacking the objectivity of the phenomena. The result here is that you start placing the secondary form of reality (the mind) before the primary (the material). Since mind cannot exist without a material construct, since mental awareness cannot exist without a material world to be aware of - these statements place "mind" as a consequence of the material. Using subjectivity to try and switch places creates a contradiction. These two mistaken premises erroneously lead you to place "mind" outside the chain of causality - or rather, every mind as a first cause of its own.

Now that I have clarified my premises' validity, would your objections still remain the same?

You have only clarified your premises, their validity remains very much in question. Your exception of your non-material construct from the chain of causality remains very much in question.

---

Very simple multiple choice question for both of you, are the electrical impulses in our brains material or non-material?

Material.

---

Let's suppose a thought experiment to help clarify some of my justifications...

1. You are the only person in existence in the material world
2. You do not possess, nor can you possess, a mechanism through which you can 'view' or 'see' the world
3. This material world which you exist in has the same attributes as the one which we exist within currently
______________________________________________________________________________________
4. Do colors exist?

Yes.

Similarly:
1. No one exists in the material world
2. The material world which exists has the same attributes as the one which we exist within currently
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Does the material world exist?

Yes. You said that in the premise yourself.

Clearly, here the material world is an objective phenomenon. This defeats your claim of its subjectivity.