Firstly, thank you heartily for the reply.
On the topic of "begs the question", I concede your point. On second read I used incorrect language, and I hope it didn't detract too much form comprehension of my broader points.
Second, on your point about Descartes and his observation that our soul lacks eyes, he was absolutely right to point this out, but then he directly contradicts himself by asserting that the two images--one from each eye--must be reassembled and presented to the soul via the pineal gland, so that the soul knows what it is observing. He was on the right track, but could not see past his own misconception that soul and body are separate. This is an ideology that will always lead to failure. There is no such thing as an 'image' in the brain. This problem persists in modern neuroscience in the "binding problem", a topic I plan to cover in the next (or perhaps the third) post. In modern neuroscience, it has evolved from the homuncular fallacy to the so called mereological fallacy; that is, ascribing to a part that which can only be ascribed to the whole. I shall cover this topic in detail in post 2.
This isn’t necessarily shown. Cognition is indeed a function of man, but I would argue that part of a man is his brain. Otherwise can I equally argue that picking up a rock is a function of man, not of our arms? You need stronger evidence to show a dualism between mind and man, I’m still very much convinced they are one and the same.
This is not shown here, but please be patient; this is a series of posts in which I will address this. Picking up a rock is a function of man. I don't know if you're trying to poke holes in my argument, but I agree with this statement 100%. A disembodied arm can no more pick up a rock than a brain can think or "assemble and image".
I look forward to your critique of parts two and three :)