C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts

Problems in the argument: Granted. A non sequitur and aslo clearly false. (Hint: How do we make babies ?) Not only false, but also begs the question.
I assume that the original argument means to restrict such a claim to the underlying physics and chemistry - which is still a question-begging example of the fallacy of composition. Since the premsies are false we have no need to accept this conclusion. Granted As I understand this it also commits the same fallacy of composition noted above.The question that really needs ot be addressed, is what is intent and where does it come from - and NOBODY has an answer that can be proven, rendering the whole thing an argument from ignorance.

If don't ASSUME that adult human behaviour includes intent - I know that it does. And if it didn't then the whole argument would be pointless.And if by a "powerful" argument you mean a trick that works on some people I suppose it is. But it is not a good or even rational argument. It isn't what I'd call a powerful argument since it is clearly fallacious.The fallacy of composition is the assumption that if the parts do not display a particular property then the whole cannot. Thus the argument that if intent is NOT a feature of the basic physical entities involved in the operation of the brain (up to, say, atoms, or molecules at most) then no aspect of the brain's operation can be said to display intent. It is not valid reasoning hence it is a fallacy.It is also question-begging since if a typical materialist view of mind is accepted then it is the case that the mind IS the product of the interactions of mindless particles and DOES display behaviour not found at the level of the basic physical entities involved. And the argument simply assumes that this is impossible without giving any reasoning - thus begging the question.For a simple comparison the electrons in yourt computer don't have any intent. Their behaviour is organised by higher level structures which are not discernable so long as you look solely at individual atoms. And if you accept that evolution can produce machine-like structures then it can certainly organise things to a similar extent in brains. Granted this argument does not necessarily extend to consciousness but it does disarm any attempt to argue that the computer requires intent.

I don't think that Crashfrog would be pleased at the idea that he is promoting solipsism.And no we aren't arguing over whether arguing is pointless. If it is then we won't find it out by arguing ! Any sensible argument has to accept that humans really can gain knowledge.Moroever you seem to be very confused about even HOW we validly arguments. If an argument is fallacious then it has no bearing on the truth of the conclusion, so it must be discarded. Thus by identifying the argument as relying on a fallacy of composition - and in a way that begs the question - we refute the argument. And I really have to ask why you asked for criticism of the argument if the only criterion you use for validity id the (possible) truth of the conclusion. You place yourself in the position of being unable to reject any argument unless the conclusion is already known - which renders argument useless altogether (e.g. you cannot reject even obviously silly arguments such as "2+2 = 4 therefore God does not exist").As to your inability to understand my argument I would suggest careful reading. Or is it that you do not recognise that intent - as we recognise it - is itself part of consciousness, which I specifically placed outsdsid the example ? I will repeat the main points. Firstly higher level organisation can cause basic physical entities like electrons to behave in ways which are (sufficiently) non-random for useful behaviour. Secondly evolution is known to be capable of producing organsiation of this sort - without any direct intent. This establishes that the argument truly is a fallacy of composition since we know that similar extrapolations ARE false.

Well it semes that you failed to understand the argument ans instad thought that it was a different invalid argument - an argument from ignorance.I must also remind you of the rquirement to debate in good faith. Accusing another participant of ignoring the issue - when in fact you are moving the goalposts is hardly that. You specifically asked for someone to address the argument (end of Message 16) and I did. You asked for clarification and I gave it. (And it is not my fault if you try to "prod" me into talking about areas where there is nothing useful to be said.)I am also sorry that you refuse to learn.

Well if you understnad the argument then you realise that the issue of intent arises as a secondary issue.So two issues arise1) Surely intent is a label applied to something we bserve in ourselves. If so it is clearly false to claim that it is simply assumed since it is directly experienced2) The argument asserts that without intent to find the truth we could not find it. Denying that we have intent either forces us into the fruitless alternative of assuming that we do not and cannot find truth or denying a premise of the argument. If "intent" is assumed it is also assumed by the argument itself. Therefore the fact that you raise the issue indicates a failure to understand the argument.As a final point it is false to claim that what you call "metaphysical" explanations must be entirely arguments from ignorance. Indeed you can only do so by insistign that we must stick to strict deductive logic. If we allow other forms of argument we can in principle do better - but that still leaves this particualr argument as an argument from ignorance. (e.g. it cannot be an inference to the best explanation since no better explanation is on offer).