Yes or no, cognitive
As more than one poster has pointed out, the continued emphatic Yes-they-do No-they-don't FMC arguments between people trained on and flying A320's IS having an effect on those not privy to front seat ops, to whit: increasing certainty that neither side has all the answers. However one side of that argument is saying that not all answers are known (and the search for additional details is at minimum prudent), and the other side seems to be saying that enough is known and the systems are presently predictable and sufficient for all flight regimes that a competent pilot would ensure.
An explanation delivered with great emphasis and and certainty does not guarantee accuracy. All the people lower in piloting stature and experience than current A320 pilots have a valid interest about what happened and why. Virtually all those people either maintain or very much want to maintain great confidence in the front seat pilots. I am finding that the most emphatic, contentious, and posts filled with certitude are the ones in which I have the least confidence, and I do not like having that reaction.
This current argument may appear unjustified following a clean accident rate five years from now, but will be viewed as prescient and proper if additional accidents continue.
Blake777 FWIW there were earlier but subsequently unconfirmed reports that the captain's body had been recovered. Given the local currents and sectioned fuselage, the expectation that all bodies will be recovered is unreasonable. An unseen blossoming of neutral or lower buoyancy fuselage contents that must have occurred just from additional damage during the raising attempts must be presumed.
RE Bonobo's: One can simultaneously and successfully task multiple inputs if those specific interactions have been repeated until they become familiar lower brain categories. We have all kinds of such examples. But ask someone to juggle multiple simultaneous questions which are all unfamiliar, or which were repeated during “education” a few times far in the past, or for which subsequent training or subsequently discovered details demand different actions (or even opposite actions) from that previously learned, all of which in the present demand high level brain function, and the thought process then goes sequential and the required time expands.
IanW is right: cognitive functions of different categories can't co-exist and, unfortunately, that varies to some degree between people. Demonstrations of quick “answers” to complex questions fall into either the lengthy rote category, or in a few individuals, intuition which is outside the scope of direct teaching and still involves luck. I disagree with Ian to the small extent that multiple aural alarms made familiar by virtue of “rote” repetitions do not need to continually demand attention, but rather a signal filed in short term memory requiring only that its cessation be noted. But an aural alarm is an on-off decision, not one (by itself) of conflicting information simultaneous with multi-relational possibilities that, perhaps just this once, is outside of all rote memory.