Similarly as with elementary particles, also other measurements yield results and descriptions which should not be taken literally. When we look at a cell in the microscope we see a cell only because we are transforming light in such way that we may describe the object with the concepts of our ordinary life. We see walls, particles etc., not because there are such things, but because we have a cell theory which leads us to observe the transformed light in the microscope as such lines and points which we may describe with our ordinary concepts. Such mistakes are very typical in the neuroscience. Therefore, we cannot use only neuronal data in the description of the human behaviour as little as we may explain with the concept of atom why a table is a table.
Human behaviour is realized by neurons as little as a table is created only by atoms.
Both neuron and atom are completely dependent on the theory which we have of the nervous system or of matter, respectively. In my opinion radical constructivism is not radical enough, because it still accepts the traditional dualism of ontology and epistemology. This dualism is based on the separation of man and environment. Radical constructivism maintains this separation, but says that we can know nothing of the environment, because we have no direct access to it. If man is born into a ready environment it is, of course, completely logical to ask how he may get knowledge from the surrounding environment, what the ultimate parts of this environment really are and how we may be sure that we may have correct knowledge about these properties.