1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RiztsaCSds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RiztsaCSds 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZx93eov5i4 http://www.youtube.com/w

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RiztsaCSds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RiztsaCSds 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZx93eov5i4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZx93eov5i4 They may add clarity and precision where I have made a gloss. PMS Hacker and most Wittgensteinians come to this conclusion; it is largely the reason why they find any value in Freudian/Gestalt psychology: for the fact that these brands of psychology avoid, as much as they can, reductionist, and this is for the fact that their theories depend on building metanarratives _on top of_ "folk psychology" rather than attempting to undercut folk psychology with some more primitive theory. The whole debate turns on which theories have better "explanatory power" while preserving our intuitive notions of the brain. Wittgenstein criticized Freudians for mistaking "decision" for "discovery"; and this is exactly what "Crypto-Cartesians" do except what is discover is not a psychological law à la Freud, but rather a neurological law. Now, of course, in their own worlds, these laws make sense; there are law like relations between, say, joy and pain; their are laws between synaptic path/subsystems and the behavior of neurons. However, talking about those laws does not give us direct insight into the _organism for which those laws have constituted_. It should be clear that if free will is not possible, then we must wonder why we decided to look inside the brain, rather than the foot, to discover why it is not possible. The problem, like with the Freudians, is that identity claims like You === Your Brain are a matter of decision, not discovery. We might decide and agree such identity claims, but not without doing severe damage to the common language which we use to identify correlations and criteria which support as evidence those claims. What these scientists are trying to do is make their position _compelling_; that is the fundamental problem here since engaging in such "justificatory" activity is a feature of science itself (i.e., peer review). This feature of the structure of scientific practice, by and large, makes it "absurd, on its face." These scientists attempt to pass off as discovery what can, by the nature of science itself, only be suggestion, persuasion, justification. Please also review "[The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/369939.Philosophical_Foundations_of_Neuroscience http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/369939.Philosophical_Foun...)."