Category Mistake in brain science

So I think it would be nice to do some experiments on my own neurons... and then I realise it would be easy I just need to touch something to stimulate a neuron and feel the response... and that the rub in Ryle's terms we have a category mistake.

When we "touch something" there are 2 ways of talking and thinking about the event.

(1) There is the usual I have touched something and now I can feel it.

(2) But then there is the scientific view: some neurons have just been stimulated and transmitted a signal to my brain. It is interesting that Buddhism uses this type of thinking to drive a wedge into sensation and ask us to see it as a constructed process that is not inherently "real."

It is worth noting that type (1) thinking, the unreflective, habitual mode where things are just things and we get on with life without introspection - we pull that cup of tea near until we feel it touches our lips and take a sip - is considered an illusion. It takes things to just be and takes sensation to be things themselves. When we see a car coming for us on the road, we step out of the way to avoid being hit by that car. Yet in type 2 thinking that is not a car, it is the sensation caused by a car in our eyes... it is a process.

At least seeing these 2 way so thinking side by side is a great achievement... cos it is a third way of thinking that is neither and can examine both.

=== Update 30/09/2018
While pushing one idea here I have got the Buddhist bit completely!!! wrong. Reality in Buddhism and Hegel et al. is just what is in appearance, and the "what is behind the appearance" is the illusion, which occurs in thoughts and imagination. So "thinking" that neurons are behind my sensations is the illusion: it is the occurrence and appearance of sensations/phenomena that is the thing we can actually observe and so it is real. So the cup of tea touching our lips when we drink is as real as you can get: the appearance of that sensation IS REALITY. If we subsequently think that this was a cup touching our lips, or a neuron firing this is a story/narrative which is never real and the reality here is the fact we have the occurrence of the thought.

So returning to the original post, the division is between 2 ways of thinking only. In reality there is only 1 way anyway.