The first lesson in Lisa Feldman Barrett’s popular book, Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain,1 is titled "You Have One Brain (Not Three)." It focuses on debunking Paul MacLean’s triune model of the brain. Developed in the 1960s and '70s, the triune brain model says we can effectively divide the human brain into three domains. According to the model, we have (1) a reptilian brain, which is the brain stem and where our instincts reside; (2) a mammalian brain, often called the limbic system, which is where our emotions reside; and (3) a new mammalian brain, or neocortex, which is where our human capacities for language, logic, and planning reside. She states that “the triune brain model is one of the most successful and widespread errors in all of science.”
Feldman Barrett is right to raise serious questions about the validity of the triune brain model. We do not have a brain arranged like Lego blocks, such that we have a core block for instincts, a second one for emotions, and a third for reason, with clear dividing lines between them. Although this is true, it also is the case that the idea of a triune brain is not completely misguided. To see why, we need to shift our focus from the brain to the mind.
I assigned Seven and a Half Lessons in my cognitive psychology class, and I followed it up with E. Bruce Goldstein’s, The Mind: Consciousness, Prediction, and the Brain.2 In opening our discussion of Goldstein’s book, I asked my class: What is the mind? Thankfully, my students recognized that the correct answer is that the word is fuzzy, and its meaning varies depending on who is using it and the field they are in. It is a nuance that Feldman Barrett doesn't explain. Although she regularly uses the term "mind," we do not learn what she means by it.
Although Feldman Barrett is right that we have one brain rather than three, there are clear ways to divide mental processes such that it makes perfect sense to say we have three minds rather than one. As my students learned in class, the question of What is the mind? becomes clear if we add the word “triune” and ask: What is the triune mind?
My recent book, A New Synthesis for Solving the Problem of Psychology: Addressing the Enlightenment Gap,3 explains why this is the case. In it, I highlight all the problems the science of psychology has had in developing a clear and coherent framework for defining its subject matter.
The reason is that different fields, schools of thought, and theorists mean different things when they are using the term "mind." Sometimes folks mean the behavioral activity of animals (e.g., the behaviorists); sometimes they mean the neuro-information processing that takes place in the brain (e.g., the cognitivists); sometimes they mean the subjective conscious experience of being in the world (e.g., the phenomenologists); and sometimes they mean the self-reflective capacities of humans (e.g., philosophers following René Descartes).
We can unify psychology into a scientifically credible vision by clarifying the relationship between mind, brain, and behavior. In the process, it gives us a new “Map of Mind” that explains why "the mind" is actually a very confusing term. Instead, we need to think of different kinds of mental processes and divide those into three distinct domains. Consistent with this post, I have labeled it the triune mind.
First, there is the neurocognitive activity of animals in the form of a sensory-motor loop. We can see this in both the structure and function of the brain and the way it processes information. And we can see this domain in the functional awareness and responsivity of animals. We can call this domain of mental processes Mind1, with Mind1a referring to neurocognition that takes place inside the nervous system, and Mind1b referring to the overt functional awareness and responsivity that takes place between the animal and environment (often referred to as behavior).
Next, there is the subjective, felt experience of being in the world. This is the focus of phenomenology. It is different from Mind1 in that it is only directly available from the inside of the person (or animal). That means we know about this domain of mind differently than Mind1 (i.e., we experience it directly as subjects in the world, and it cannot be observed by another directly, which makes it difficult for science to study). We can call this Mind2.
Finally, there is the self-conscious reasoning and justifying domain. This domain operates via the intersubjective highway of human language. It is the domain that allows us to connect through this blog post. Whereas Mind1 is available to study via the brain and behavior, and Mind2 is available to be perceived from the inside, Mind3 is verbal and is studied via human language, justification, and meaning-making. Moreover, Mind3 flows through the skin and resides in the intersubjective domain of human persons. When you talk privately (Mind3a) and then share that thought publicly (Mind3b), the information content is the same. This is in direct contrast to the way you experience red or the taste of ice cream, which can’t be shared directly. This means that Mind1 is primarily available via objective analysis and observation, Mind2 via subjective knowing, and Mind3 via intersubjective knowing.
The take-home point here is that next time someone asks you to define the mind, tell them that is a confusing term that means many different things. Then follow that up by explaining that you can tell them what the triune mind is and proceed to make sense out of a lot of confusion that exists in the literature.
References
1. Feldman Barrett, L. (2020). Seven and a half lessons about the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
2. Goldstein, E. B. (2020). The mind: Consciousness, prediction, and the brain. MIT Press.
3. Henriques, G. (2022). A new synthesis for solving the problem of psychology: Addressing the Enlightenment Gap. Palgrave MacMillan.
What Is the Triune Mind?
19
0
23.03.2023
The first lesson in Lisa Feldman Barrett’s popular book, Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain,1 is titled "You Have One Brain (Not Three)." It focuses on debunking Paul MacLean’s triune model of the brain. Developed in the 1960s and '70s, the triune brain model says we can effectively divide the human brain into three domains. According to the model, we have (1) a reptilian brain, which is the brain stem and where our instincts reside; (2) a mammalian brain, often called the limbic system, which is where our emotions reside; and (3) a new mammalian brain, or neocortex, which is where our human capacities for language, logic, and planning reside. She states that “the triune brain model is one of the most successful and widespread errors in all of science.”
Feldman Barrett is right to raise serious questions about the validity of the triune brain model. We do not have a brain arranged like Lego blocks, such that we have a core block for instincts, a second one for emotions, and a third for reason, with clear dividing lines between them. Although this is true, it also is the case that the idea of a triune brain is not completely misguided. To see why, we need to shift our focus from the brain to the mind.
I assigned Seven and a Half Lessons in my cognitive psychology class, and I followed it up with E. Bruce Goldstein’s, The Mind: Consciousness, Prediction, and the Brain.2 In opening our discussion of Goldstein’s book, I asked my class: What is the mind?........
© Psychology Today
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Grant Arthur Gochin
Gideon Levy
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Priyamvada Gopal
Poonam Muttreja
Obaid Mir
Patrick Gathara
Zaher Sahloul
منير أديب
