You argue as if involving neuronal activation is sufficient evidence that something is an ability. But inabilities
are as neuronal as abilitites. If someone becomes incapably drunk, that is as much as matter of neuronal activity
as anything else. But in common sense terms, it is loss of ability, not acquisition of an ability.
An ability to do what?
You argue as if involving neuronal activation is sufficient evidence that something is an ability. But inabilities are as neuronal as abilitites. If someone becomes incapably drunk, that is as much as matter of neuronal activity as anything else. But in common sense terms, it is loss of ability, not acquisition of an ability.
In an case, there are plenty of other obections to the Ability Hypothesis