I'm somehow sceptical about the current trend of testing philosophical theories through their accord/disaccord with neuroscience's results. The main point is that I do not think one might establish more than interesting coincidences but no direct causal relationship. It might be that some brain cells are active while one feels happy, but this does not describe what the feeling of happiness is.
But many philosophers seem to be proud because their own theories are now "proven" right by such coincidences.
(Probably, the co-operation with philosophers (even with proud ones) can be a major improvement while working on neuropsychology and it is a pity that most neuroscientists are just no interested in philosophy.)