A couple of months ago I wrote an article concerning ECT which generated some controversy. One of the issues that came up was the relationship between biological explanations of human activity and more global explanations, which, for want of a better term, I’ll call person-centered explanations.
Any human activity can be viewed from different levels of abstraction. Suppose, for instance, that I am sitting in my living room reading a book. Then I put the book down, stand up, and go outside. If the question were to be asked: why did he put the book down and go outside? A wide range of perspectives and answers are possible. One could, for instance, focus on the fact that I am a biological organism, and one could develop a detailed and comprehensive flow sheet of every muscle movement, every heartbeat, every sensory input, neural impulse etc., that had occurred from the moment that I put the book down until I was standing outside. Such an account might be more or less detailed. There would, of course, be physical limitations on the amount of information of this sort that is attainable, but from a theoretical point of view, one could compile a detailed, complete, and accurate biological account of the actions in question. And such an account would be a valid response to the question: why did he put the book down and go outside.
...