Neuroscience that skips theorizing biological-to-mental transition risks serving ideology.

Evidence

We have shown that, by proposing no theory or interpretation of this transformation or this transition—which cannot simply be the result of observation or of objective description— neuroscientific discourse in general exposes itself to ideological risk and offers nothing new to mankind, while plasticity, far from producing a mirror image of the world, is the form of another possible world. To produce a consciousness of the brain thus demands that we defend a biological alter-globalism. — Catherine Malabou, What Should We Do with Our Brain?, 260 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Psychoanalysis and neurology can only dialogue after accepting negative plasticity — Catherine Malabou, The New Wounded: From Neurosis to Brain…, 4333; Treating mental illness as brain chemistry depoliticizes it and serves capitalist interests — Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No…, 82; Neuroscience without a theory of transformation exposes itself to ideological co-option (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Neuroscience without a theory of transformation exposes itself to ideological co-option #corroborates (0.98)
• Neuroscience that skips the nature-to-culture transition is ideological, not descriptive. #corroborates (0.95) — Catherine Malabou, What Should We Do with Our Brain?, 260