Surely the concept itself is sound if you forget the misleading names and the idea of three independent modules? The more ancient parts of the brain certainly are located nearer the brainstem, and the most recent ones near the surface.
Also, even though the brain appears on a high level to function as a coordinated whole, there are certainly situations where, for instance, the ancient FFFF[1] responses compete with whatever the neocortex wants to do. Indeed, there's even a plausible-sounding hypothesis[2] that subjective experience itself arises from conflicts between the different modules.
No matter someone's stance on this, it seems a bit forward to discredit a relatively widely-held theory as something that is weakly argued by providing a few bullet points and then an outright assertion of another competing theory. This kind of thing has no place on Hacker News.
How is it a widely-held theory? It hasn't stood up to scrutiny, at least any well documented tests.
It is sorta misleading, in fact, because a lot of good authors and speakers assume it as a well known fact and add their leaps of imagination to it. It is OK at best as a pop culture thing, maybe a poetic spin off.
Why does it have no place on Hacker ... oh, you know what, scratch that. No point entering that debate. Thanks.
It's not a scientific theory, at best it's folk wisdom. This article is pointing out that there is no scientific basis for it.
The onus is not on anyone to disprove the theory, the onus is on the theory's proponents to prove it, they haven't done so, not to the slightest degree.
Sharlin|12 years ago
Also, even though the brain appears on a high level to function as a coordinated whole, there are certainly situations where, for instance, the ancient FFFF[1] responses compete with whatever the neocortex wants to do. Indeed, there's even a plausible-sounding hypothesis[2] that subjective experience itself arises from conflicts between the different modules.
[1] Fight, flee, feed, reproduce
[2] http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=791
ExpiredLink|12 years ago
webhat|12 years ago
biggfoot|12 years ago
Credit to the author, he wrote an (equally well received) apology after he was corrected in this.
guard-of-terra|12 years ago
biggfoot|12 years ago
linuxhansl|12 years ago
We all spend most (all?) of our time being driven by impulses and habits without realizing that we're doing so and without any choice in that matter.
Moments of mindfulness are the exception, typically caused by some "unusual" event - like somebody you know dying.
It's quite a sad state of affairs (IMHO anyway). More like living the live of an extremely sophisticated robot, rather than a conscious, living being.
Everybody should spend a few minutes every day reflecting on exactly how decisions throughout the day were made.
biggfoot|12 years ago
larsonf|12 years ago
biggfoot|12 years ago
It is sorta misleading, in fact, because a lot of good authors and speakers assume it as a well known fact and add their leaps of imagination to it. It is OK at best as a pop culture thing, maybe a poetic spin off.
Why does it have no place on Hacker ... oh, you know what, scratch that. No point entering that debate. Thanks.
InclinedPlane|12 years ago
The onus is not on anyone to disprove the theory, the onus is on the theory's proponents to prove it, they haven't done so, not to the slightest degree.
Daniel_Newby|12 years ago