I think you have misunderstood my point. The quote - or my comment is not disputing reductionism, but rather that the act of deconstructing the mind removes the person - one has to recognize that person or car for that mater consists of parts.

We can talk about all of these things and never reference "car". "Car" vanishes, but the actual car does not.

Agreed, I expressed myself poorly but by "strip" I meant "not include into concept car", so more over if you assign driving as a function of a car, and then reduce the car into parts, finding that the engine, wheels and so on, are in fact the the things that do the work, it is a fallacy to conclude "AHA the car is not doing the driving it's the engine, wheels. . . ." since car = it's parts. That is how many people with dualistic intuitions approach the mind.

there's nothing erroneous about a small self concept. And even if I don't stop the reduction to draw a boundary, the imagery doesn't "shrink back to a singularity", it just bottoms out at physics.

That depends on what you include in your concept of self - we don't want this to turn this into a discussion about trees falling in the forest. But I was assuming that a lot of people have the same sens of self as I have, we are all human after all. I think "shrink back to singularity" is a metaphor, not a physical singular point.