No, neuroscientists don't know much about the mind

livemint.com:

If you have ‘neuro’ in your bio, you can say just about anything about the mind, as though you know what it is. If you are situated in the West, and identify as male, you will be taken even more seriously. Andrew Huberman is one of several beneficiaries.

He is also from Stanford, so conditions were perfect for him to begin a podcast about that thing people hyphenate with confidence: ‘mind-body.’ He used expressions like “peer reviewed" and it appeared to many that he spoke scientific truths. He attracted millions of listeners. He is so popular that even though you may not have heard his podcast or read him at all, a lot of advice that has come down to you from reformative types emerged from him.

If you know people who have suddenly become morning antennas to “catch" sunlight or started buying products like ashwagandha, you indirectly know Huberman. His fame would suggest a world deeply interested in physical and mental fitness. You wouldn’t be able to guess that by looking around.

Huberman says a lot of commonsensical things and uses the sacred theology of science to persuade people—sleep well (somehow); eat fruits, vegetables, proteins and healthy fats; remember to drink water; stress is bad; physical exercise is good; as much as possible, stay away from computer screens. Which sane person can disagree with any of this? But he also says a lot of abstract things, like, for instance, that practising gratitude “activates neural circuits." He offers some kind of “scientific" evidence, but some of us intuitively know, or “neurally" know, that you cannot say anything definite yet about a whole lot of human behaviour just because somethings lit up on electroencephalogram. Generally, Huberman says that decent behaviour leads to