For those of you interested in evaluating Bickle’s “ruthlessly reductive” approach to neuroscience, you may find the following articles of his especially useful:

Bickle, John. 1995. “Psychoneural reduction of the genuinely cognitive: Some accomplished facts.”  Philosophical Psychology 8 (3):265-285.

Bickle criticizes the antireductionist argument that psychological explanations require representations and computations over their contents. This has implications for defenders of Marr-style integration (e.g., Bermudez and Oaksford), but also for mechanists such as Piccinini and Craver, autonomists such as Weiskopf, and pluralists such as Potochnik and Sanches de Oliveira.

Bickle, John. 2015. “Marr and Reductionism.”  Topics in Cognitive Science 7 (2):299-311.

Marr was explicitly antireductionist. In this article, Bickle challenges Marr. Note that some of the authors we’ve read, such as Bermudez and Oaksford, are defenders of Marr’s approach.

Silva, A. J., and John Bickle. 2009. “Science of Research and the Search for the Molecular Mechanisms of Cognitive Functions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Neuroscience, edited by John Bickle. Oxford University Press.

I haven’t looked at this, but it may be a useful survey article.