Ryle's regress and the Homunculus argument

Philosophy
21

Today when “philosophers debate”, we use the standard scientific method for—
relevance of our thoughts words as descriptions about existence.
Free Will is pretty well contained by our thoughts, as words,
but these, words, of our thoughts have been evolving----
Could one of evolution`s effects be for thought to become free
of words and descriptions to, free our will, to be?

22

Arnold, you are the Jackson Pollock of philosophy. Throw in some words and see what we get. Although, that analogy would be more accurate if you were actually trying to accomplish anything here. Maybe your posts are more like mistakenly kicking a bucket of paint. Are you okay?

23

I just heard on NPR that the United States Constitution had divided humans into fractions in the 1850s;
Can we look at life differently----what is Being and Evolution for, today?

24

Can we look at life differently in what way? Does your question make sense to you?

25

I am not a philosopher, but, I have been trying to use this forum “to objectify our current means of existence”;
In this way all science can be better understood as a value for our means of existence;
What is life without values?
I propose we need a minimum of three different pots of paint—one plus one equals a result,
and so it is with Faith and Reason equaling Being;
Reason is only one pot for a means (philosophy) to existence—

26
I am not a philosopher, but, I have been trying to use this forum "to objectify our current means of existence"; In this way all science can be better understood as a value for our means of existence; What is life without values? I propose use need minimum of three different pots of paint---one plus one equals a result, and so it is with Faith and Reason equal Being---
Well, that's clear, don't you think, George? :-/ Especially in relation with the original question of Morgantj about Ryle's homunculus and the problem of free will. I could not have said it clearer than arnoldg does. :blank:
27

No, of course it’s not clear at all.
Arnold, what I am trying to say is that your posts make zero sense. Ask simple questions and use simple words. Why, for example, do you capitalize the word “Being”? What is the meaning of this? (Not that setting it in lower case would make any more sense.)
Try again. Reword your question and make it as simple as possible. Stay away from trying to sound (what you think is) philosophical or deep, and forget about metaphors or sounding poetic. That is, if you want to engage other people here in a conversation with you.

28

Free Will today is seeing when it is time to move on; I have begun to edit my posts to be of neutral interest;
Is interaction of philosophy and theosophy possible today?
Two months ago I proposed if Observation could become an Object (concept) for science (concepts like Matter, Space and Time);
Then the interactions of philosophy and theosophy would provide the values needed for science today.
Ontology today, is study from an individual (my Being) point of view—for the preservation of the individual as a value of life.
What is your understanding of Being----Wikipedia: Being, Stoicism, Epistemology-may help,
Then begin your search to practice with others, trust no one but your Being

29

Oh, well.

30

This seems apropos, here, too—
The movie Zardoz refers to a disconnected head—
as a concept with out means for free willers and nonfree willers alike.
The mind says there is free will, the body has to find it —

31
I just heard on NPR that the United States Constitution had divided humans into fractions in the 1850s;
The rest of us learned that in grade school. Perhaps you weren't paying attention.
32
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?
From the wiki you cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument
The problem with the homunculus argument is that it tries to account for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain.
It is a circular argument which begs the question and as such, it is an untenable argument. However, what is free will? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. Factors of historical concern have included metaphysical constraints (for example, logical, nomological, or theological determinism), physical constraints (for example, chains or imprisonment), social constraints (for example, threat of punishment or censure, or structural constraints), and mental constraints (for example, compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions).
In the human context, what is the agent that has the ability to make free choices? Is it only the conscious mind/brain without metaphysical, physical, social or mental constraints? Or should it also include the "second brain" as well? http://neurosciencestuff.tumblr.com/post/38271759345/gut-instincts-the-secrets-of-your-second-brain
When it comes to your moods, decisions and behaviour, the brain in your head is not the only one doing the thinking
So, when is the agent actually free to exhibit free will at all? Given the stringent conditions in the above definition of free will and the influence of the "second brain", it implies that human free will is unattainable. OTOH, the above definition of free will is circular. When is an agent free to exhibit free will? When it is unconstrained by the very same factors which will allow it to do so. :cheese:
33

Philosophy is about noumenon–about the existence of observation
Science is about phenomena—about the observation of existence