The fallacy of composition is not an argument.
I was not trying to make that argument. I was just saying that it’s possible to slap any metaphysical claim on top of what occurs, or seems to occur, naturally. Thus, the fact that you can do that with a “mind” means little.
- It is clear that which is non-rational is essentially not rational.
I’m not sure I buy this, in part because we haven’t had a comprehensive understanding of any rational being, so we don’t know how rational beings work. Thus, we cannot say that rational beings cannot be composed of materials that by themselves aren’t rational.
A computer processor may be logical, yet the individual silicon transistors are not.
- We observe rationality indirectly through teleological effects.
This is only the case if we observe the rational being(s) doing the effects. For example, we can consider a watch lying on a beach to be the result of the work of a human (without having to consider if the human is rational or not) because we have seen humans make such things. We also can determine that humans are rational because their behavior is what we would expect a rational being to have.
- The parts that make up the brain is non-rational without exception.
Individual bits of silicon aren’t capable of computing logically, but that doesn’t mean that a computer processor can’t function as a logical unit. Similarly, the fact that individual parts of the brain cannot “be rational” in no way means that it cannot function as a part of a complex machine that is rational.
- There is no clear sufficient rational basis for moving from the parts to the whole in the sense of producing rationality.
We may not have a comprehensive enough understanding of any rational being to do so with complete confidence, but everything we have learned in neuroscience is that when parts of the brain fail, the “mind” or “rationality” fails in ways that we are able to predict. Just because we may not have such a comprehensive understanding of how human “minds” function doesn’t mean you can assert there is an something immaterial driving it.
Take, for example, some tribe that doesn’t know why it rains. Some think that it rains because the rain spirits pour water on the Earth, and that we should pray to the rain spirits for rain. Others may observe that it
somehow is caused by the clouds. Just because he doesn’t have a complete mechanistic understanding of how this happens doesn’t mean that he is justified in concluding that the rain spirits are working in and with the clouds to get it to rain.
- You are simply saying that because the brain is physical that therefore the mind is physical because we think with the brain
Almost. Anything that is worth calling a “mind” fails when the brain fails and works when the brain works, just like an artificial intelligence works when the processor works and fails when the processor fails.
Conclusion:
Your attack is based on unjustified premises, such as the argument that since a small individual part of a brain cannot function as a rational being on its own, the brain as a whole cannot be rational.
The metaphysical implications of causality does not allow us to stop at the “brain” as a sufficient explanation for rational teleological thought.
Within the narrow confines of
your metaphysics that may be the case. However, that is hardly going to persuade anyone who does not already subscribe to your philosophy with your premises, such as the following assumption:
True rationality and freewill cannot be the sum total of blind non-rational processes.
And what do you say to back up this assumption…
The two are evidently and absolutely distinct in nature essentially speaking
Oh, you simply assumed it by declaring that their “natures” are different, and thus one cannot be an account for the other. What else…
To say that a square can be a triangle at the same time is a contradiction. To say that that which is essentially non-rational can be rational and **goal directed ** at the same time is a contradiction. To say that such is possible is a contradiction in terms.
Within the confines of your own made up philosophy using terms you have defined, you have defined it into being a contradiction. What else…
Thus we are forced by that fact to say that an intellectual will is not an effect of the brain but rather is that which exists in correlation with the brain. No assumption is being made.
Haha, that’s classic. You determine your own definitions of words, such as “rational,” and declare a contradiction that only you have formed, you assume that something that cannot function rationally on its own cannot compose something that does, then you say, “No assumption is being made.”
The claim is simply a logical necessity.
A conclusion that is arrived at via logic cannot be taken seriously unless the premises, such as the assumption that something that cannot function rationally on its own cannot compose something that does, is justified. I can formulate a logical argument that would disprove Einstein’s belief that nothing can travel faster than light if the premises are justified:
1 An object that is pushed moves faster.
2 A can of spam is an object.
3 If a can of span traveling at the speed of light is pushed, it will travel faster than the speed of light.
