But however far such explanations go they cannot be applied to the agency of the scientist who is involved in observing and explaining. If she tries to use a model of plant or insect conditioned reflexes to observe herself, the scientist is by definition no different from the fellow who thinks he is being cooked sunny side up for breakfast. Nor can any genuine scientific agency be broken down into building blocks. You can do that for another body as in dissecting a body in a morgue. But no scientist can do that with any credibility for genuine scientific work, which involves the pure agency of the total person.
Philosophers know they can no longer posit a ghost or soul or whatever in the human machine.
A total mind-body unity seems inescable. Scientists have great faith that a total explanation must be possible, but it seems that the Tractatus proved that the scientist as agent can logically never be part of the explanation. Between the Tractatus and the Investigations he struggled with the question of other minds. I think his conclusion was that we can never prove logically that other minds exist as persons. What we can do and must do is to use the language-games needed to treat them as persons.