Thanks for that reply and apologies for not reading through the comment threads before spouting off as I did. Fairly typical to the way I work. See something that interests me, fire off whatever crazy thing pops into my head at that moment with not a lot of reflection. I have to be honest that I did not even read your complete post as once I got to that paragraph I just had to stop and go to work, lol!
I do find it fascinating that she cites B&H in support of her theory. No doubt many could find support for almost anything in a book with as wide ranging a scope as the Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. The title itself is an exercise in hubris and bombacity that I find absolutely irresistible. Not sure I would have the balls to publish anyting purporting to describe the foundations of anything let alone something as daunting a subject as neuroscience.
In any event if you have never read it, it is an amazing book. For such a heavy technical topic they do a fantastic job of structuring the book and the arguments in a way that most non-neuroscientists/scientists or philosophers can follow. I am not saying it is an easy read but well worth it if you can find the focus to stick with it.
I promise I will actually read your article now.