What adds to the confusion is the false certainty of neuropsychology. Worse yet are “brain on a chip” which compounds errors of inference.
Psychology is pragmatic and always changing — I don’t fault it as a field. Science performed scientifically is science. I don’t buy into “soft vs hard science”.
As it is, it’s fine for what it does. BUT…
Neuropsychology uses what comes from psychology and adds in nifty scans to attach to these theories and adds more certainties on top, because of our implicit bias of “math = strong truth”, mostly because its got a handy internal consistency. Plus, the co-developments of physics and math together through the centuries does strengthen its case.
How many models do we have?
“hard wired evolutionary” / genes=computer program metaphor.
brain-as-computer in general.
Showing more promise imo are learning models that are environmental, genetic and “processing”. Practopoesis is my favorite, as it tries to define intelligence for all species as well as AI – and more loosely Lakoff’s embodied cognition.
In any case skepticism is always in order but it’s worth continuing to research.
THIS basic model of “double loop learning” is a solid base though for any kind of learning, infant, animal or otherwise. As long as this is in there somehow, it’s not TOTALLY a black box but it mostly is.