Unfortunately, despite multiple people explaining the problems with it, those appealing to that particular fallacy never could understand why they were wrong to invoke it. Yes, but unlike Diamond, they were mostly hysterically-foaming-at-mouth nutcases. But I saw no point in repeating that entire argument when it can probably be easily linked for his perusal.
Thing is, is the
Fallacy of Composition" really applicable here, or is this a case of the
Fallacy of Division?
It seems that the argument can be arranged in two ways, each appealing to one of the fallacies. IIRC, exmarine was appealing to the
Fallacy of Composition" by saying that it is impossible for humans to be nothing more than a collection of atoms, because atoms don't have certain "lifelike" properties (and thus something composed only of atoms would only have the properties of the component atoms), while Diamond is invoking the
Fallacy of Division by saying that if humans are nothing more than atoms, then atoms must have some "lifelike" qualities
I think I avoided the fallacy of composition by using the past tense, "turned" in my #187, by which useage I meant to accurately characterize the essentially historical claim that at least in one place in the universe, hydrogen atoms turned into people. I did not mean to imply that the claim is that hydrogen atoms, given enough time, always and everywhere turn into people.
Cordially,