Philosophy of Neuroscience - Science topic

It seems to me that the power of the mechanistic account of explanation (Craver; Bechtel; Glennan) is to take apart individual components and see how they contribute to a given behaviour. In my opinion, the significant focus still is on the activities of individual components. The concept of the mechanistic organization should make mechanical models more holistic. However, in my opinion, the mechanistic organization merely focus on the spatial (i.e. proximity and distance) and temporal (i.e. different times of activation) co-ordination of mechanistic components. If this is the case, I do not see why the mechanistic organization should imply that mechanisms, for example, in neuroscience, are holistic. The mechanistic organization does not include a concept such as "way of working" (Bergeron, 2007) which points out the comprehensive way of cooperating of a set of components abstracting away from the activity of individual components. For instance, Burnston (2019) suggest that for studying how a set of brain regions (i.e. a brain network) underlies a specific cognitive function, we may look at the "brain frequency" (alpha: 8-13 Hz; beta, 18-25; theta: 3.5-7 Hz; delta: 0.5-3.5 Hz, and gamma: 30-70 Hz) of the whole network. That is holistic! Is it my impression or is there no an account of the mechanistic organization (in neo-mechanical philosophy) that takes into consideration "ways of working" together of every mechanistic component both intra-level and inter-level?

Please, let me know if you think I am wrong, and where may I read a substantially holistic account of the mechanistic organization.

Here,Dreaming reality is concerned in Philosophy and Neuroscience.

Even better if these address the issue in special sciences, and especially in neuroscience and psychology.

According to the recent studies about computational power of astrocytes (for review see Min, Rogier 2012) or their role in health and diseases (for review see Philip G. Haydon 2009, Domingues, AMJ M Antonio 2010) and so on (see book of Verkhratsky, A 2009), it seems astrocytes are very important cells in the brain and we are in the astrocytes decade.

In the wake of my questions about astrocytes, I want to know your opinion about using "neuroglia-science" or "glia-science" or "astro-science" like neuroscience for studying glia cells? they are mysterious and powerful cells.

Can anyone help me find out if there is a community out there that in interested in what may be thought of as a blending of Philosophy and psychology? I need to stress that I am not talking about the philosophy 'of' psychology. I am interested in a blending of the 2 disciplines. I would also be interested to know about possible publications in this area.