A Direct Rebuttal to Mainstream Neuroscience: Why Observation Without Psychextrical Interpretation Has Reached Its Limit
BY: OMOLAJA MAKINEE
Introduction: The Crisis Is Not Evidence, but Method
Mainstream neuroscience is not failing because it lacks data. It is failing because it lacks an adequate interpretive method. The discipline continues to accumulate neuroimaging, genetic associations, pharmacological correlations, and behavioural observations—yet its explanatory power has stagnated. Findings are routinely contradicted, revised, or quietly abandoned, not due to fraud or incompetence, but due to methodological confinement.
At the core of this confinement lies a foundational error: neuroscience remains psychologically tethered. Its interpretive lens is inherited from psychological-methods that prioritise observable behaviour, epigenetic modulation, and surface correlations while under-theorising biological susceptibility, inheritance architecture, and timing-dependent activation.
Psychextrics does not reject neuroscience’s observations. It rejects observable interpretations under psychological-methods.
1. The Cortical Fallacy: A Persistent Misattribution
One of neuroscience’s most entrenched assumptions is that the cortex is the meaning-engine of the brain. This belief persists despite mounting contradictions:
- Individuals with massive cortical damage retaining reasoning capacity.
- Cerebellar agenesis patients displaying motor function without cerebellum.
- Dissociations between conscious awareness and decision-making.
Neuroscience responds to these contradictions with the language of plasticity and compensation, without ever interrogating what exactly is compensating—or whether intelligence is involved at all.
Psychextrics offers a simpler and biologically coherent explanation:
Meaning is generated in the diencephalon. The cortex is the display window of consciousness.
Once this distinction is made, compensation ceases to be mysterious. There is no cortical intelligence stepping in. There is only misrouted display.
2. Why Mainstream Neuroscience Misreads Plasticity
Plasticity is often treated as proof that the brain “reorganises intelligently.” This is an interpretive leap, not an observation.
Cerebellar agenesis demonstrates that:
- Genes do not replace missing genes.
- Meaning-generation remains intact.
- Display-routing continues blindly.
Signals destined for a missing cortex do not “learn” new destinations. They flow unbidden to the next mapped cortical region. The receiving cortex displays the function incorrectly—not because it is intelligent, but because it is available.
Mainstream neuroscience confuses availability with capability.
3. The Rosehip Error: When Regulation Is Mistaken for Cognition
The discovery of rosehip neurons has intensified this confusion. Because rosehip neurons are human-specific and exert powerful inhibitory control, they are increasingly framed as potential contributors to intelligence, abstraction, or even psychiatric pathology.
This is a categorical mistake.
Rosehip neurons are regulators, not meaning-engines. They route diencephalic output to the correct cortical display fields using inherited GIM/HIM maps. When they malfunction, meaning does not disappear—it arrives in the wrong place.
Neuroscience misattributes:
- Display distortion as cognitive failure.
- Misrouting as faulty reasoning.
- Inhibition imbalance as defective intelligence.
Psychextrics corrects this error by separating:
- Meaning production (thalamic nuclei).
- Signal regulation (rosehip neurons).
- Conscious perception (cortex).
Without this separation, neuroscience will continue to diagnose display errors as thinking disorders.
4. The Autism Debate: A Case Study in Methodological Failure
The paracetamol–autism controversy exposes neuroscience’s deeper flaw. Observational studies showed correlation. Sibling studies removed population-wide causation. Neuroscience declared the matter resolved. Yet both sides operated under the same false assumption:
That susceptibility is uniform across individuals.
Psychextrics rejects this assumption outright. Behavioural conditions are not caused; they are activated. Activation depends on:
- Inherited GIM/HIM susceptibility.
- Epigenetic timing (EIM/HFI).
- Developmental windows.
Mainstream neuroscience lacks the conceptual tools to model individualised susceptibility. As a result, it oscillates endlessly between alarmism and dismissal.
5. Why Neuroscience Cannot Resolve Its Own Contradictions
Neuroscience remains trapped because it:
- Treats genes statistically rather than architecturally.
- Treats environment as causal rather than permissive.
- Treats behaviour as produced rather than expressed.
This leads to paradoxes such as:
- “This exposure causes autism—except when it doesn’t”.
- “This gene increases risk—except when it doesn’t”.
- “The brain compensates—except when it can’t”.
These are not mysteries. They are artefacts of inadequate interpretation.
6. Psychextrics as Methodological Advancement, Not Opposition
Psychextrics does not oppose neuroscience. It completes it.
Where neuroscience observes:
- Psychextrics interprets.
Where neuroscience correlates:
- Psychextrics contextualises.
Where neuroscience generalises:
- Psychextrics individualises.
The psychextrical framework restores biological coherence by recognising:
- Fixed inherited susceptibility.
- Variable epigenetic activation.
- Non-negotiable genetic constraints.
7. The Cost of Ignoring Psychextrical-Methods
By refusing to move beyond psychological-methods, mainstream neuroscience incurs real costs:
- Misdiagnosis.
- Over-medicalisation.
- False prevention strategies.
- Public confusion.
More data will not solve these problems. More funding will not solve these problems. Only better interpretation will.
8. Methodological Comparison: Psychological-Methods versus Psychextrical-Methods
| DOMAIN | PSYCHOLOGICAL-METHODS | PSYCHEXTRICAL-METHODS |
|---|---|---|
| Foundational Assumption | Behaviour is primarily shaped through learning, environment, and adaptive cognition. | Behaviour is the expression of inherited biological architecture interacting with epigenetic activation windows. |
| Primary Unit of Analysis | Observable behaviour, reported cognition, population-level trends. | Individual susceptibility architecture (GIM–EIM / HIM–HFI variants). |
| View of the Brain | Cortex-centred executive system with distributed cognitive control. | Diencephalon-centred meaning generator; cortex as conscious display interface. |
| Role of Consciousness | Conscious thought directs behaviour and decision-making. | Consciousness reflects decisions already produced by subcortical networks. |
| Interpretation of Plasticity | Brain regions adapt intelligently to compensate for damage or learning. | Signal routing continues non-intelligently within inherited neural maps; availability is mistaken for capability. |
| Explanation of Compensation | Cognitive systems reorganise to preserve function. | Misrouted diencephalic output is displayed in alternate cortical regions without cognitive substitution. |
| Genetic Role | Genes influence probability and risk through statistical association. | Genes define fixed architectural boundaries and susceptibility variants. |
| Epigenetic Function | Epigenetics modifies gene expression and behavioural outcomes. | Epigenetics activates, suppresses, or times expression within genetically fixed limits. |
| Environment–Biology Relationship | Environment causally shapes behaviour. | Environment permits or triggers expression but does not generate traits. |
| Meaning Generation | Meaning emerges from cortical integration and higher-order cognition. | Meaning is compacted in thalamic–diencephalic nuclei before cortical display. |
| Emotion Processing | Emotion is integrated cognitively and modulated cortically. | Emotion is hormonally indexed (HIM–HFI) and precedes cognition. |
| Interpretation of Disorders | Disorders arise from dysfunctional cognition, learning, or neurochemical imbalance. | Disorders reflect mismatches, misrouting, or variant activation within inherited architecture. |
| Diagnostic Logic | Symptom clustering and behavioural criteria (DSM-style). | Variant-mapping and susceptibility alignment analysis. |
| Individual Variability | Treated as noise around population means. | Central explanatory feature; no two individuals share identical variant harmonics. |
| Use of Statistics | Population averages used to infer individual causation. | Statistics describe prevalence, not causation; interpretation remains individual. |
| Temporal Perspective | Behaviour understood in present-time functioning. | Behaviour interpreted across developmental timing and activation windows. |
| Moral and Agency Model | Individual agency framed as cognitive control and choice. | Agency emerges from harmony or mismatch across GIM/EIM and HIM/HFI indices. |
| Therapeutic Orientation | Behavioural modification, cognitive restructuring, pharmacological correction. | Alignment, regulation, and environmental synchronisation with inherited variants. |
| Failure Mode | Overgeneralisation and misattribution of causality. | Limited only by current mapping resolution of variants. |
| Scientific Limitation | Correlation-heavy with explanatory stagnation. | Interpretively demanding but biologically coherent. |
Methodological Summary Statement
Psychological-methods operate by observing behavioural surfaces and inferring internal processes through statistical generalisation. Psychextrical-methods invert this logic: they begin with inherited biological architecture and interpret behaviour as its expressive outcome. Where psychology explains what occurs, psychextrics explains why it could occur at all—and why it manifests differently across individuals.
Conclusion: Neuroscience Must Outgrow Psychology
Neuroscience’s greatest limitation is not technological—it is philosophical. Until it extricates itself from psychological-methods and adopts a biologically grounded interpretive framework, it will continue to mistake correlation for causation and regulation for cognition.
Psychextrics offers a way forward:
- Meaning is not where neuroscience thinks it is.
- Behaviour is not caused the way neuroscience assumes.
- Individual biology matters more than population averages.
The future of brain science will not be decided by who collects more data—but by who finally learns how to interpret it.
Back to: 👇