Granted I'm still not even at an intermediate understanding of neuroscience, I think advancing on this psycho/neuro dichotomy is important. How can thought be understood in the terms of science? The mistake would be to ask "whats really going on?" because that would set us up to make the prevailing error or conflating the map with the territory.
But the curiosity persists - what is going on there, insofar as our science can voice it? Marvelously complex circuitry that can push its own boundaries of complexity. The cosmic zenith of organized matter. But if it is conveyed via words, images, or anything that imports meaning, its the map.
The error is to suppose/presuppose that the content presented by the map exists identically beyond the map. You can even do this and be met with positive feedback, which merely indicates that your prediction was sufficient, that the map approximated the territory enough to satisfy whatever you needed satisfied.
But this approximation, I believe, is best considered asymptotic - moving closer and closer to identifying the territory, but never aligning into complete identity with it.
But we can consider the territory as the untouchable real (short of a sustained nirvanic lucidity), and still operate pragmatically in response to our reality. We are able to contrive meaning even after the point when we become convinced that meaning does not exist beyond our attempts to contrive it.
This could be an antidote to nihilism, albeit one that requires work, perhaps constant work. But as of the last couple months, it doesn;t feel like constant work anymore.