existential potential, you are confusing neuroscience with neurophilosphy.
Dr Churchland is a philosopher, with a particular interest in viewing philosophical issues in the context of neuroscientic findings.
This is what she says on her Web site:
My research focuses on the interface between neuroscience and philosophy. Although many philosophers used to dismiss the relevance of neuroscience on grounds that what mattered was "the software, not the hardware", increasingly philosophers have come to recognize that understanding how the brain works is essential to understanding the mind.
I explore the impact of scientific developments on our understanding of consciousness, the self, free will, decision making, ethics, learning, and religion and issues concerning the neurobiological basis of consciousness, the self, and free will, as well as on more technical questions concerning to what degree the nervous system is hierarchically organized, how the difficult issue of co-ordination and timing is managed by nervous systems, and what are the mechanisms for the perceptual phenomenon of filling-in.
The central focus of my research has been the exploration and development of the hypothesis that the mind is the brain. My first book, Neurophilosophy (1986), argued in detail for a co-evolution of psychology, philosophy and neuroscience to answer questions about how the mind represents, reasons, decides and perceives. A major unanswered question in Neurophilosophy concerned the theoretical apparatus needed to bridge the gap between lower and higher levels of brain organization. I turned to this task in 1987, and began to collaborate with Terry Sejnowski on the book The Computational Brain (MIT 1992).
She does not talk about wanting to replace the "mentalist vocabulary" or the "folk psychology" terms which we commonly use to think about and describe ourselves. What she instead suggests, is that those terms might simply become obsolete or useless, in time, as we learn more about brain functions.
I'm not sure why you even ask:
Will neuroscience replace pyschology, or will it just replace folk psychology, or will it replace both, or are they one and the same? If they are one and the same, then they will be replaced, eliminating psychology
I really think you do not understand what psychology is, otherwise you wouldn't ask these questions.
Psychology is a social science--it is the discipline which is devoted to the scientific study of behavior. It is not only compatible with neuroscience, it includes neuroscience--there are neuropsychologists. As neuroscience continues to evolve, psychology continues to evolve. One is not about to replace the other, they are not mutually exclusive. And neurophilosophy can embrace the findings of both psychology and neuroscience--as Churchland trys to do.
Models of personality development, or treatment of psychopathology, such as the psychoanalytic model of Freud, are only tangentially related to the scientific discipline of psychology. These are theories, not scientific evidence. This is not what Churchland is referring to when she speaks of "psychology". Theories evolve, and may fall by the wayside as new scientific evidence emerges within psychology.
I'm not sure it makes much difference to the average person whether they think they have "a mind" (the mentalist or folk psychology term) or whether they have only "a brain" (the neuroscientific or neuropsychological term). I suspect that these philosophical and linguistic differences mainly occupy academicians, and are of little concern to anyone else. In time, we all may well change how we understand, and conceptualize, and think about ourselves, but such changes will be gradual, and hardly cause for any alarm. And understanding ourselves in terms of our brain functions won't make us any less human than we are now.
If Churchland takes aim at anything, it is most likely religion. If we are only to be understood empirically, in terms of our brain functions, there is no "soul" to be found in the brain. When the brain dies, we die, and there is no metaphysical or spiritual component which will go on to exist in some sort of afterlife. While some might find this view to be unsettling, it is only one, of many areas, where religion and science may collide or ultimately prove to be incompatible.
I think Churchland does manage to raise some interesting philosophical questions about the nature of human responsibility, morality, and ethics, in light of neurological findings, but I can't say I find much else particularly earth-shattering or provocative in her remarks, and I listened to at least 6 of her videoclips on the link existential potential posted. I accept that I am a biological animal, and that what I think, and feel, and do, is, in fact, based in my brain. That I find indisputable. One has only to look at the effects of Alzheimer's disease, where "the person" slowly disappears as the brain is gradually destroyed, to appreciate just how fully we are little more than our brain functions. Some might find that notion disturbing. I don't.