This argument is meant to simplify some of the technical aspects and various positions regarding the existence of the mind. I also wanted to highlight some of the closely related issues connected to this topic.
The three options in the first premise are empirically equivalent, meaning that the findings of cognitive science and neuroscience will be the same regardless of which option is correct. The differences between the options is metaphysical, and thus, this is a metaphysical argument.
1. The mind is either identical to the brain or dependent on the brain or independent from the brain.
2. If the mind is either identical to the brain or dependent on the brain, then the mind is controlled by the brain
3. If the mind is controlled by the brain, then free will and moral responsibility do not exist.
4. Free will and moral responsibility do exist.
5. Therefore, the mind is not controlled by the brain (MT 3, 4)
6. Therefore, the mind is neither identical to the brain or dependent on the brain (MT 2, 5)
7. Therefore, the mind is independent from the brain (DS 1, 6)
Mind is the source of our beliefs, feelings, desires, volitions, and perceptions.
Free will is, minimally, the capacity to control one's actions.
Moral responsibility is the capacity to know and ability to act as one ought.
The first premise lays out the three broad options for defining the mind roughly relating to physicalism, property dualism, and substance dualism. If you think the mind does not exist or reduces to the brain, then that is equivalent to the mind and brain being identical. If you think that the mind emerges from the complexity of the brain, then the mind is dependent on the brain. Choose the last option if you think that the mind is an independent substance from the brain.
The second premise groups the first two options according to the mutual cause of the brain. By control, I mean that the mind operates according the physical states of the brain and that the mind has no causal powers over the brain.
The third premise is based on the idea that an object that responds only to physical causes cannot control how it acts. This applies whether these causes are determined or in some sense random as long as they are physical in origin.
The fourth premise is an inductive statement that most accept as true if not explicitly, then implicitly in daily interaction with other people. We assume this is true whenever we blame or praise someone for what they did.
The final three conclusions follow logically from the premises therefore the argument is valid. The premises seem more plausibly true than their negations therefore the argument is sound (though I am sure many will correct me).
I look forward to sincere responses and critiques. I will try to answer questions of clarity directly related to my arguments; however, questions presented as apparent counterarguments will be ignored, for questions are not arguments. Also, simply stating possible alternative explanations is not enough. To challenge the soundness of this argument, it has to be shown how the premises are less plausibly true than their negations. I suggest perusing this article
for a good overview of the topic.