Evolution says things about what the brain does, and what it ought to do, but nothing about how it does it.

Neural Darwinism?

Reality does not care who has the burden of proof, and it does not always provide proof to either side.

If I'm only willing to expend a certain amount of effort for gaining understanding of a given aspect of reality, then I won't listen to any explanation that requires more effort than that. Preparing a good explanation that efficiently communicates a more accurate picture of that aspect of reality is the burden of proof in question, a quite reasonable requirement in this case, where the topic doesn't appear terribly important.

I don't see anything 'false' about the statement. I simply stated some other fields that have been used to explain aspects of the brain as well, and that, while PCT may be a useful addition, I have seen no evidence yet that it is 'life changing'.

I enjoy reading LW for all the bright people and new ideas things to learn. In this case however, I was a bit disappointed, mainly because of the self-help-fluff. There are enough places for that kind of material already, I think.

Of course, I cannot demand anything, it's just some (selfish?) concern for LW's S/N-ratio.

PCT is the only model I am aware of which even attempts to bridge the gap in between.

FWIW, Hawkins's HTM model (described in "On Intelligence") makes another fair stab at it, and has many similar characteristics to some of PCT's mid-to-high layers, just from a slightly different perspective. HTM (or at least the "memory-prediction framework" aspect of it) also makes much more specific predictions about what we should expect to find at the neuroanatomy level for those layers.

OTOH, PCT makes more predictions about what we should see in large-scale human behavioral phenomena, and those predictions match my experience quite well.