“The mental faculty responsible for the selection of our controlled actions has traditionally been dubbed “the will.” From the cogitava of Aquinas to the noumenally free will of Kant, philosophers have posited this central faculty as the helm of the body and the mind. The will is said to be where desires and goals are translated into action and where ingrained habits are suppressed in favor of reasoned plans. It has been heralded as the seat of moral thought.
By some accounts, the mind is modular, with the will fairly isolated from other mental faculties. The sources of emotion, world knowledge, memory, learning, and imagination are at the will’s disposal, but are not part of it. Indeed it is thought the will can function, if perhaps clumsily, without these other faculties. The will is also often seen as essentially atomic—a fundamental aspect of the self that cannot be decomposed into other psychological processes.
Unfortunately, asserting that such a will is the source of our actions does little to advance our understanding; it merely introduces a regress concerning the locus of decision making. We started with the question of how the individual makes a choice, and we are left with the question of how the will makes a choice. The will takes on the character of a homunculus—a little man who resides in the mind and acts as the “central executive" of the cognitive enterprise. The homunculus seems to be the ruler of the mind, the maker of choices, and the kernel of identity, but it is truly a useless hypothetical construct that explains nothing about the origin of our actions. If we are to understand our own controlled behavior, the homuncular will must be exorcised from the mind."
Ryle’s Regress - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryle’s_regress
Homunculus argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument
It seems that Ryle’s regress and the Homunculus argument has something going for it in regards to an argument against free-will. Your thoughts?