I just advanced my argument. And once again you avoided giving a substantive response to it, opting instead to feign misunderstanding by giving knee-jerk caricatures.
Here's another stab at explicating my argument (although I encourage you to return to the original post as well). "Wanting" exists as an instrumental concept, not as a causal antecedent of action. It is an abstraction that we use to describe and predict action, but it doesn't itself cause action--physical laws do (laws which may or may not include quantum indeterminacy--lest I be misunderstood by others, I should emphasize that that issue is irrelevant to my argument). So if we take "wanting" to be a causal determinant of behavior, as I think you would, then my response would be that neither single cells nor masses of cells "want" things in that causal sense which I reject. But if we take "wanting" simply as a potentially useful abstraction, as I would, then the question of whether single cells or masses of cells "want" things depends entirely on whether one personally thinks that it makes useful sense to apply such an abstraction to that particular unit of analysis. Whether or not any given person thinks such an attribution makes useful sense is not important for my argument; my point is simply that such attributions are for the cognitive benefit of the attributer, and that they ought not to be interpreted as making claims about the actual causal determinants of action.
How is this a relevant question? The words "logic" and "rationality" do not even appear in the text you quoted. As I tried to say earlier, this discussion would go a lot smoother if you would make actual propositions rather than just offering a series of vague questions. I "tire of such things." As a hint, try to follow the model of argument that I laid out and that you apparently ignored.
Did I not make myself utterly clear, or is it really just a complete spinal response for you to restate whatever I say as a question? Invoking a preference for chocolate ice cream is not an explanation for why someone chooses chocolate ice cream because it doesn't tell us anything we couldn't already tell from the information given in the question. The fact that someone has a preference for chocolate ice cream is the very thing which needs explaining. A true explanation would therefore explain where this preference comes from.
And pray, what superior justification do you have for propounding that the laws of physics don't govern human action?