The article uses the word "mind" in its title, but the article is strict neuroscience, i.e. it discusses the brain from a biological perspective. The word "mind" never appears again. The mind (psychology) is not the brain (neuroscience).
Just like the execution of a program can be described in Machine Code, 1's and 0's or even as electricity, or any other layer of abstraction.
From a scientific perspective, it's much more important than that. Neuroscience has empirical evidence, theories, and is a science. Psychology has anecdotes, no testable, falsifiable theories, and, for lack of empirical evidence, cannot be a science.
> Basically, I think you're painting a false dichotomy.
So is the director of the NIMH:
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h
Quote: "America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom."
> The dream would be to be able to put all these levels of abstractions together, and have good mappings between them.
Yes, absolutely, and I think this will eventually happen within neuroscience. But focusing on the mind, something inaccessible to empirical investigation, is not the road to that goal.
How is discussion of an article's text 'off-topic', particularly when the discussion is entirely cogent and on point? If an article uses a word in the title, it should also occur in the text.
Anyway, if you're concerned about effective downmodding, you should probably head over to https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=brazzledazzle where their last comment was a personal attack.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10877103
It's great to see lutusp back. It's a shame he comments on psychology articles. His comments on any other subject are interesting, fascinating, useful.