I sympathize with what you're saying, but any broad survey of an incredibly complex subject like this is necessarily going to need to simplify some aspects of it. I definitely agree with you that the notion of the mind as a physical construct is a fascinating topic, but someone could easily write something just as long as the original article and barely scratch the surface.
Are there concrete ways you feel the article could be improved to address your points? (I'm asking out of genuine interest since you seem to know a lot about the subject.) Alternately, do you have other sources you'd recommend as a preferable introduction to the topic?
As a lay person with limited knowledge of these traditions, I didn't get the sense that the author was using axioms and derivations in a strict mathematical sense, but rather as "these are some foundational bits of epistemology in this tradition which informed further developments," for whatever that's worth.
Are there concrete ways you feel the article could be improved to address your points? (I'm asking out of genuine interest since you seem to know a lot about the subject.) Alternately, do you have other sources you'd recommend as a preferable introduction to the topic?
As a lay person with limited knowledge of these traditions, I didn't get the sense that the author was using axioms and derivations in a strict mathematical sense, but rather as "these are some foundational bits of epistemology in this tradition which informed further developments," for whatever that's worth.