A thing with a brain. In light of your subsequent premise, there is a material difference between a mind and a brain.
This is to say nothing of the gigantic leap you make to God in that last premise, mind you.
Correlation does not prove causation so, for instance, the brain may simply contain and react to thoughts rather than create them.That issue aside, plants don’t have brains but appear to have will flowing through them , they will for light , water and they will to attract insects (etc).The plants themselves may not be thinking in any way, but there may be an underlying thoughtfulness to existence.
Will is necessarily thought based, though not necessarily intellectual in nature.We know this through our own experience, I have to will a particular thing in order for me to do it (accidents aside).Even “automatic” actions (like breathing) are dependent upon instructions, instructions are not things they are thoughts.
Are you then saying that plants have minds?
Will is not necessarily thought-based at all. Nietzsche’s rendering makes more sense, at first blush at least, than does thoughtful plants.
And do you really think about every breath?
No, I’m saying that thought underlies everything .The thought doesn’t have to originate in the plant, it may just flow though it (from God for instance).
I think will is a form of thought, I can’t conceive of it in any other way.Desire/want is not a thing it is a thought.
I do think about breathing at a sub-conscious level (non-intellectual). There is probably a part of my brain that , were it to be damaged, would stop me breathing.I don’t know anything about the mechanism of breathing, but I’m sure it is mind/brain dependent. 
Oh. So,
Your last premise isn’t a conclusion, it’s just a ferinstance.
Okay.
You might try a little Nietzsche. I think he can help.
If it’s subconscious, then how would you know?
Okay, Chet.
My last point isn’t a “ferinstance”, if things exist with a specific purpose, but they have no mind of their own , then it is necessary that another mind directs will through them.
Nietzsche’s view is insane (like the man).Will, if it is to mean anything, has to have conscious intent.If you had your brain removed and someone wired your body up to the mains so that it jerked and flailed around the room dominating more space, according to Nietzsche you are displaying a will to power.A mindless body has no will of it’s own, the will comes from the person switching on the electricity. 
I haven’t got a will to have power over others, or ever greater space , have you?
Breathing is regulated by a part of the brain, however that sub-conscious part of the brain can be controlled by the conscious part (eg, if you were to blow your brains out), ergo, breathing is dependent upon will.
I honestly think you should put your prejudices aside and give Nietzsche a try. At best, you may be pleasantly surprised. At worst, it’ll stop you showing yourself up. 
Chet -
Well, you might want to establish, or at least argue, that things exist for a specific purpose. It’s not a prima facie case.
I have an idea that you have no idea what Nietzsche’s view about will really is. Will doesn’t have to have a conscious intent. To Nietzsche, will is motive and not intent. Just for starters. But we’ve been down the motive/intent road before.
That’s just incorrect.
A brainless body would have no will. Nietzsche wouldn’t even know what you’re talking about. Well, yes he would, but you clearly don’t have any idea what he was talking about.
Everyone has a will to have power over others, and over more than just others.
But the brain does more than produce thoughts, and it was thoughts that we were talking about.
Ooh, can we tie this and the suicide thread together?
I was confusing the two for a moment, myself.
Are you saying I’ve shown myself up in front of all 4 of you, wow how embarrassing ! Actually, did you notice the laughing head at the end of my point? It was me trying to be funny based on this, " In its later forms Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power applies to all living things, suggesting that adaptation and the struggle to survive is a secondary drive in the evolution of animals, less important than the desire to expand one’s power. Nietzsche eventually took this concept further still, and transformed the idea of matter as centers of force into matter as centers of will to power.", from here… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_ … l_to_power
Nietzsche is for egoists, and an ego maniac is the last thing I want to be…I’ll leave that for others.
The leaves on a tree exist for the specific purpose of delivering energy to the tree.Do I need to prove this?
Your point about a brainless body having no will seems to contradict the quote I gave to Only_Humean.
The only thing I want power over is myself.That’s what Nietzsche didn’t get, he thought power was external (ie, over others), when in fact real power is self control.
My breathing is dependent upon my thoughts, as I have said, if I blow my brains out I stop breathing.I’m glad breathing is generally an automatic process (that can be consciously over-ridden) because I would lose the will to live if I had to think about it all the time.
Chet -
Firstly, you’re confounding function and purpose. Secondly, what is the purpose of a tree?
I can find a quote about Nietzsche that supports almost any position. That quite doesn’t contradict what I have said, however. Nietzsche had no view about lifeless bodies charged with an electric current.
Let’s discuss this over a hamburger. He understood that self-control was needed, also. You really should read a sentence or two of Nietzsche for yourself.
Addressed and, evidently, ignored.
fausty, fausty , fausty, I’m amazed that you don’t understand function serves purpose.
A tree has a number of purposes, one is locking in carbon and releasing oxygen (photosynthesis).
Nietzsche had a view (according to the link) that matter is a centre of will to power.Matter is not necessarily brain.
I’ve read more than a sentence by Nietzsche and come to the conclusion that he was wrong, but that ego maniacs would love him (which is the main reason why I know he was wrong, ego maniacs always go mad).
You ignored my point about breathing… the fact that it is dependent upon conscious will.
That’s something that a tree does. That’s not a purpose. Purpose implies intent. You are merely surmising that the functions of a tree reflect a purpose. That there somehow “must” be an intent, and that since trees don’t have intents of their own, that something out there has an intent that the tree’s function serves. It’s viciously circular.
According to the link. There’s a little more to it than that, but I’m not going to argue Nietzsche with someone who has never read him.
Ego maniacs. Who always go mad.
I guess I’m done, here.
There is a program written into a seed that becomes a tree. A program implies that the various functions of a tree (and it’s leaves) have specific aims, they are not mere aimless functions , they are purposes. Put simply, if functions are pre-programmed then they are purposes, ergo programmed implies intent .Btw, one of the meanings of “Function” is ," the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role."
I don’t have to trawl through Mein Kampf to understand Hitler, a few quotes from him and the book will suffice to give me a general picture…same goes for Nietzsche.If I don’t like the general egotistical picture why the hell would I delve into the detail when other, more learned people have already done that for me?
Yeah, I was wrong about ego maniacs going mad, maniac implies they are already mad.
I never said you loved Nietzsche , or that you were an ego maniac, but hey, if the hat fits…