Triune Brain & Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whenever I introduced the concept of the Triune Brain as a basis for Morality in some ways, some will jump at it with some links to insist it is absolutely out-dated.
I believe such attitude is very unintelligent, given the concept of the Triune Brain is not obvious trash.
The intelligent should know what to pick as useful subject to the known limitations and reject the irrelevant.

Here is ChatGPT's view:
[note this is not authoritative but give a general view based on a survey of whatever info is available in the internet];

The concept of the Triune Brain, proposed by neuroscientist Paul D. MacLean in the 1960s, suggests that the human brain can be divided into three main components: the reptilian brain (or reptilian complex), the limbic system, and the neocortex. While this theory has gained some popularity and has been influential in the past, it is important to note that it is not universally accepted among neuroscientists today.

Critics argue that the Triune Brain model oversimplifies the complexity of the brain's structure and function. They argue that it does not accurately reflect the interconnectedness and integrated nature of brain regions and their functions. Additionally, the model implies a strict evolutionary progression from reptilian to mammalian to human brains, which is not supported by current understanding of brain evolution.

However, some aspects of the Triune Brain concept can still be considered useful or informative when used with caution. For example, the idea of the limbic system, which encompasses structures involved in emotions and motivation, including the amygdala and hippocampus, has been widely accepted and studied in neuroscience.

Moreover, Robert Sapolsky, the neuroscientist .........., is known for his work on stress and the effects of stress on the brain. In his presentations and writings, he often refers to the Triune Brain model as a simplified framework to explain certain aspects of human behavior, particularly in relation to stress responses.

While the Triune Brain concept may have limitations, it can still serve as a pedagogical tool or a starting point for discussions about brain anatomy and function.
However, it is important to recognize its limitations and not to interpret it as a comprehensive or definitive model of brain organization.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

Whenever I introduced the concept of the Triune Brain as a basis for Morality in some ways, some will jump at it with some links to insist it is absolutely out-dated.

No one said it was absolutely outdated. It is no longer held by the majority of scientists.

I believe such attitude is very unintelligent, given the concept of the Triune Brain is not obvious trash.

So, saying that something is no longer held to be true by most scientists, which is the case, is unintelligent AND saying that it is obvious trash. Talk about both strawman, needless hyperbole and binary thinking.

The intelligent should know what to pick as useful subject to the known limitations and reject the irrelevant.

1) Intelligent people can have disagreements about such issues. Insulting people who disagree with you is unnecessary.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA has posted about the triune brain theory, with no overt reference to morality. Here's a response.

I suggest the triune brain theory is a nice example of reverse-theorising, as follows.

We have distinct mental faculties, within which perceiving, thinking, feeling, willing, intending, and so on, go on. But, given physicalism, these so-called mental processes must occur in discreet parts of the brain.

But the 'higher mental faculties' aren't present in the brains of pre-human life forms, from which humans evolved.

Therefore, part of the human brain is 'reptilian' (the basal ganglia, dealing with basic biological needs and primal instincts), part is 'paleo-mammalian' (the limbic system, dealing with emotions), and part is 'neo-mammalian' (the neocortex, dealing with objective or rational thoughts).

The attraction of this theory for VA is obvious: the human brain is organised physiologically to deal with different aspects of human life; therefore, 'morality' is programmed, somehow, into the human brain.

The conceptual influence of faculty psychology - and mentalism in general - on neuroscience is itself a fascinating issue. 'We have thoughts; therefore, this physical phenomenon is 'a thought'. '

From the observations of physical brains from brains [nervous system] of different species, it is obvious there are distinct separate parts.
It is also very obvious the human brain has parts that other animals and micro-organisms do not have.
There is no issue in attributing that different species of living things has different parts of the brain.

The mistake that Paul Maclean [in the 1960s ] made was to claim that because only humans has high intelligence, therefore intelligence must arise from the parts of the brain that only humans has.
Later it was discovered that even birds with small brains and do not have the larger parts of the human brain were nevertheless relative intelligent.
Dogs, dolphins, elephants, octopuses, which do not have parts in human brains were also shown to be demonstrate intelligences.
Therefore Paul Maclean was wrong in assigning brain functions to specific parts of the 3 parts of the brain.

As such, it is possible that animals down to the reptiles has intelligence [primal emotions and other primal functions] but not as complex as those that evolved later to those of humans.

But the differences in anatomical parts between fishes, reptiles, animals and humans are still a valid theory of the brain anatomy.

Note this from ChatGPT [with reservations]:

The human brain possesses several distinct functions that are generally considered more advanced or uniquely developed compared to other animals. Some of these functions include:

Language and Communication: Humans have highly developed language abilities, allowing for complex communication through spoken and written words. While other animals may have their own forms of communication, human language is unique in its complexity and ability to convey abstract concepts.

Symbolic Thinking and Abstract Reasoning: Humans have the capacity for symbolic thinking, enabling the use of symbols and abstract concepts to represent and manipulate information. This ability is fundamental to various cognitive processes such as mathematics, art, and conceptual reasoning.

Metacognition: Humans have the ability to reflect on their own thoughts and think about thinking, known as metacognition. This includes self-awareness, introspection, and the ability to monitor and regulate one's own cognitive processes.

Future Planning and Mental Time Travel: Humans have the capacity to mentally project themselves into the future, plan ahead, and anticipate consequences. This ability for mental time travel enables us to consider future scenarios and make decisions based on long-term goals.

Theory of Mind: Theory of mind refers to the ability to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that may differ from one's own. Humans have a well-developed theory of mind, allowing us to attribute mental states to others and infer their thoughts and perspectives.

Executive Functions: Humans possess advanced executive functions, including the ability to inhibit impulses, plan and organize behavior, set goals, and adapt to changing circumstances. These functions play a crucial role in decision-making, problem-solving, and self-control.

While these functions are often considered unique to humans, it's important to note that other animals possess their own cognitive abilities and may exhibit similar but less developed versions of these functions. The degree and complexity of these functions can vary across different species, reflecting their specific evolutionary adaptations and ecological niches.

Note all the above are facts, i.e. FSK-ed facts which are supported by their corresponding physical neuron sets in the brain.

It is when these neural facts and those related to moral elements are inputted into a credible moral FSR-FSK, that enable the emergence and realization of objective moral facts, thus human-based morality is objective.

[Iwannaplato]

From the observations of physical brains from brains [nervous system] of different species, it is obvious there are distinct separate parts.

So, external to us, there are brains and in these brains there are 'distinct separate parts.' How do they manage to be distinct and separate, when you grant there to be no independent external reality. IOW out there there are these independent parts, but nothing is separate and distinct from minds. This is strange. And it's even stranger when we consider that those 'distinct separate parts' are always in complex interaction with eachother. Always. And everything we do involves an ongoing dynamic interaction of these supposedly distinct separate parts.

Mind and the external world are not separate at all. To the degree that any facet of the latter disappears the moment the former isn't paying it any attention.

but the parts of the brain are separate and distinct even though there are in the same place and ALWAYS paying attention to each other and interacting.

This isn't just realism. It's realism that doesn't fit modern realist neuroscience.

And then that different 'parts' of the brain are associated with different functions does not entail the triune brain theory, nor the ways you use this theory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are various meanings to the term 'distinct'.

My use of 'distinct' in this case is something like,'
the head is distinct from the body [torso] and legs in terms of features.
As such it does not mean the body is a separate part and unattached to the body.

It is the same when I stated the human brain has 3 distinct parts which can be seen easily but they are all interconnected between each other and to the body.
With the current knowledge of neurosciences, it would be very stupid of me to claim there are 3 independent separate parts of the brain.

[Iwannaplato]

There are various meanings to the term 'distinct'.

My use of 'distinct' in this case is something like,'
the head is distinct from the body [torso] and legs in terms of features.
As such it does not mean the body is a separate part and unattached to the body.

Separate certainly means separate. Anyway according to neuroscientists (most of them realists) there are 180 distinct parts of the brain.

It is the same when I stated the human brain has 3 distinct parts which can be seen easily but they are all interconnected between each other and to the body.

180

With the current knowledge of neurosciences, it would be very stupid of me to claim there are 3 independent separate parts of the brain.

distinct and separate is pretty independent.

I don't think they are separate, I think it's an integrated whole. That's why they call it a nervous system - I don't even leave out the rest in the spinal column or the complex nerve systems around the heart and gut, or the rest of the nerves. Or the endocrine system for that matter since this affects every function of the brain is affected by it and part of it is in the brain. Nor the cardiovascular system, given it's affects on the brain.
ETC.

I don't know where you see neat separations with all the connections. And, on the specific topic, this is clear in the brain. The 180 regions are not separate. They are all connected to each other.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Strawman.

I stated;
With the current knowledge of neurosciences,
it would be very stupid of me to claim there are 3 independent separate parts of the brain.

I don't claim to be that stupid.
Therefore I believe the nervous system with the brain and parts identified as distinct are all interconnected by neurons and synapses.

In addition, it is possible for the brain and its parts to interact and work via quantum processes rather than direct physical connections.

WHY MANY RESEARCHERS NOW SEE THE BRAIN AS A QUANTUM SYSTEM
https://mindmatters.ai/2022/12/why-many ... um-system/

[Iwannaplato]

Strawman.

I stated;
With the current knowledge of neurosciences,
it would be very stupid of me to claim there are 3 independent separate parts of the brain.

Which you justified by saying distinct doesn't mean separate!!!!!!!! But you said 'distinct separate' and 'separate' means separate.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 7:56 am
From the observations of physical brains from brains [nervous system] of different species, it is obvious there are distinct separate parts.

And the 'parts' of the bain are not separate.

I don't claim to be that stupid.
Therefore I believe the nervous system with the brain and parts identified as distinct are all interconnected by neurons and synapses.

Which, at the very least means that they are not separate and their distinctness is not binary.

In addition, it is possible for the brain and its parts to interact and work via quantum processes rather than direct physical connections.

Of course and which which would mean they are not separate and even less distinct.

[Agent Smith]

One poster seems unconvinced by David Maclean's theory and although he has quite a good reason for his skepticism, we could counter his argument by calling to our aid a very well-worn distinction.

[Iwannaplato]

One poster seems unconvinced by David Maclean's theory and although he has quite a good reason for his skepticism, we could counter his argument by calling to our aid a very well-worn distinction.

One certainly could. But given that the context is a discussion with someone who refers to FSKs, the relevant FSK is neuroscience. And the consensus of neuroscientists no longer believe in the Truine Brain.

You and I could have another discussion, of course, because it is less clear where you are coming from.

We have refereces such as....
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 20response.

Theory impacts how research is conducted. A popular theory used to conceptualize brain functioning is the triune brain theory. The triune brain theory is an evolutionary theory of brain development that emphasizes three key brain regions consisting of the brainstem, the limbic system, and the cortex that function relatively independently in coping with stress via fight or flight, emotion, and cognition, respectively. However, modern neuroscience research demonstrates that the triune brain theory does not accurately explain how the brain functions in everyday life or during the stress response. Specifically, emotion and cognition are interdependent and work together, the limbic system is not a purely emotional center nor are there purely emotional circuits in the brain, and the cortex is not a purely cognitive center nor are there purely cognitive circuits in the brain. We propose a new evolutionarily based model, the adaptive brain, that is founded on adaptive prediction resulting from interdependent brain networks using interoception and exteroception to balance current needs, and the interconnections among homeostasis, allostasis, emotion, cognition, and strong social bonds in accomplishing adaptive goals.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-med ... ompelling/

But according to Terrence Deacon, Ph.D., an expert on the evolution of human cognition at the University of California, Berkeley, subsequent research has revealed that MacLean’s basic premise—his “‘hats on top of hats’ view” that brain systems were added by accretion over the course of evolution—was mistaken. “Adding on is almost certainly not the way the brain has evolved,” said Deacon. “Instead, the same structures have become modified in different ways in different lineages.”

https://thebrainscientist.com/2018/04/1 ... ard-brain/

MacLean proposed his (incorrect) theory after he made some curious observations about the effects of cutting out what he called the “reptilian complex” of a monkey’s brain (so named because he thought it looked similar to the tissue that made up most of a reptile’s brain). When MacLean took out this part of a male monkey’s brain, the monkey stopped aggressively gesturing at its own reflection (which it thought was another male monkey). This behavioral change seemed to fit MacLean’s hunch that he had taken out a “reptile”-like part of the monkey’s brain, since he thought that aggressive gesturing is a typical example of “reptilian behavior.”

It’s unclear why cutting out this part of the monkey’s brain made the monkeys stop showing aggressive displays, but this brain area, more commonly called the globus pallidus, is known to be involved in an enormous variety of processes. Also, to my knowledge, MacLean’s original observations have not been replicated. What’s more, MacLean’s claim about the prominence of the globus pallidus in the reptilian brain is false: it forms just one part of reptiles’ brains, exactly as it does in the monkey brain.

Based on these loose observations, MacLean argued that we might have a “lizard” brain inside of our brain. In other words, he thought that we never got rid of the “reptilian” brain we inherited from our reptile ancestors, but instead evolved new brain structures on top of our old reptile brain.

Based on these shaky foundations, together with other loose observations regarding what he considered to be uniquely mammalian behavior, MacLean went on to develop a full-blown theory of human brain evolution. The theory held that inside our brains there is a primitive reptilian complex, which is surrounded by an “old” mammalian structure called the limbic system, which is itself surrounded by a “new” mammalian structure called the neocortex. The neocortex was, MacLean asserted, the crowning jewel of brain evolution – the structure, in other words, which made humans (and perhaps other intelligent mammals) unique.

Leaping to conclusions was MacLean's watchword.

[Agent Smith]

One poster seems unconvinced by David Maclean's theory and although he has quite a good reason for his skepticism, we could counter his argument by calling to our aid a very well-worn distinction.

One certainly could. But given that the context is a discussion with someone who refers to FSKs, the relevant FSK is neuroscience. And the consensus of neuroscientists no longer believe in the Truine Brain.

You and I could have another discussion, of course, because it is less clear where you are coming from.

We have refereces such as....
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 20response.

Theory impacts how research is conducted. A popular theory used to conceptualize brain functioning is the triune brain theory. The triune brain theory is an evolutionary theory of brain development that emphasizes three key brain regions consisting of the brainstem, the limbic system, and the cortex that function relatively independently in coping with stress via fight or flight, emotion, and cognition, respectively. However, modern neuroscience research demonstrates that the triune brain theory does not accurately explain how the brain functions in everyday life or during the stress response. Specifically, emotion and cognition are interdependent and work together, the limbic system is not a purely emotional center nor are there purely emotional circuits in the brain, and the cortex is not a purely cognitive center nor are there purely cognitive circuits in the brain. We propose a new evolutionarily based model, the adaptive brain, that is founded on adaptive prediction resulting from interdependent brain networks using interoception and exteroception to balance current needs, and the interconnections among homeostasis, allostasis, emotion, cognition, and strong social bonds in accomplishing adaptive goals.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-med ... ompelling/

But according to Terrence Deacon, Ph.D., an expert on the evolution of human cognition at the University of California, Berkeley, subsequent research has revealed that MacLean’s basic premise—his “‘hats on top of hats’ view” that brain systems were added by accretion over the course of evolution—was mistaken. “Adding on is almost certainly not the way the brain has evolved,” said Deacon. “Instead, the same structures have become modified in different ways in different lineages.”

https://thebrainscientist.com/2018/04/1 ... ard-brain/

MacLean proposed his (incorrect) theory after he made some curious observations about the effects of cutting out what he called the “reptilian complex” of a monkey’s brain (so named because he thought it looked similar to the tissue that made up most of a reptile’s brain). When MacLean took out this part of a male monkey’s brain, the monkey stopped aggressively gesturing at its own reflection (which it thought was another male monkey). This behavioral change seemed to fit MacLean’s hunch that he had taken out a “reptile”-like part of the monkey’s brain, since he thought that aggressive gesturing is a typical example of “reptilian behavior.”

It’s unclear why cutting out this part of the monkey’s brain made the monkeys stop showing aggressive displays, but this brain area, more commonly called the globus pallidus, is known to be involved in an enormous variety of processes. Also, to my knowledge, MacLean’s original observations have not been replicated. What’s more, MacLean’s claim about the prominence of the globus pallidus in the reptilian brain is false: it forms just one part of reptiles’ brains, exactly as it does in the monkey brain.

Based on these loose observations, MacLean argued that we might have a “lizard” brain inside of our brain. In other words, he thought that we never got rid of the “reptilian” brain we inherited from our reptile ancestors, but instead evolved new brain structures on top of our old reptile brain.

Based on these shaky foundations, together with other loose observations regarding what he considered to be uniquely mammalian behavior, MacLean went on to develop a full-blown theory of human brain evolution. The theory held that inside our brains there is a primitive reptilian complex, which is surrounded by an “old” mammalian structure called the limbic system, which is itself surrounded by a “new” mammalian structure called the neocortex. The neocortex was, MacLean asserted, the crowning jewel of brain evolution – the structure, in other words, which made humans (and perhaps other intelligent mammals) unique.

Leaping to conclusions was MacLean's watchword.

I see. How so very disappointing. I had grown to like Maclean's theory - it is a theory, oui? Nevertheless, I was very specific with regard to the criticism I offered. Truth is, I really had no choice but to say what I did.

Good to hear that some of our brethren know their stuff ... pretty well it seems. Hats off ta them and some ... those who are a notch above the rest of us ... must breathe a sigh of relief. Luckily/unluckily, I don't see anyone in my vicinity of such caliber. Deus Magnus Est.

[Iwannaplato]

I see. How so very disappointing. I had grown to like Maclean's theory - it is a theory, oui?

I'd call it a hypothesis, though I did call it a theory earlier.

Nevertheless, I was very specific with regard to the criticism I offered. Truth is, I really had no choice but to say what I did.

No worries, not that I understood that criticism. In any case, one could take his theory as a metaphor. And it shares things with Freud's tripartite schema: id (really 'it'), ego and superego.

Gotta love the id. Integrate! don't suppress or 'dam'!
That's the ticket.

[Advocate]

The brain can be understood as levels more or less accessible to our aware self. It's not rocket science.

[Agent Smith]

I see. How so very disappointing. I had grown to like Maclean's theory - it is a theory, oui?

I'd call it a hypothesis, though I did call it a theory earlier.

Nevertheless, I was very specific with regard to the criticism I offered. Truth is, I really had no choice but to say what I did.

No worries, not that I understood that criticism. In any case, one could take his theory as a metaphor. And it shares things with Freud's tripartite schema: id (really 'it'), ego and superego.

Gotta love the id. Integrate! don't suppress or 'dam'!
That's the ticket.

Yep, we havta love the id (it)! You got that right!