Don't think so, sorry!
>>If you accept there's no real self, you can't consistently claim
>>that a chain of causation could be traced back to it.
>
>See above. 'Self-interest' becomes 'in the interest of the biological
>entity'.
OK, so you're talking about the entity as a whole. Fair enough.
Except that, if in pursuit of the motivation of an action you
descend to the level of individual neurons (which I think is what
you suggested), there is no way to climb back up to that of the
entity as a whole. You're still left with some patterns of
neuronal firing, which there's no way to link to anything but
previous patterns of neuronal firing.
>>>It also tells us that reflection alone *cannot* reveal our motives to
>>>us. It also requires examination from an outside source.
>>
>>No, it just tells us introspection is not entirely reliable.
>
>???...That's what I just said.
There's a difference between saying that something is generally
insufficient, and saying it's not always sufficient. OK, it's a
matter of degree, but it seemed significant to me here.
Robin