/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18263011]

It's literally impossible to deny Anamnesis how do brainlets keep getting filtered by it lmao.

[Anonymous No.18263022]

>>18263011
>lmao

[Anonymous No.18263045]

>>18263011
Idk about anamnesis but I do feel rather strongly that consciousness is 'leaky'. Would explain psychic phenomena, synchronicities, ghostly apparitions and so on.

[Anonymous No.18263154]

>>18263011
Even Hegel and Wittgenstein believed in anamnesis.

[Anonymous No.18263417]

I saw someone use this image in another thread.

[Anonymous No.18263538]

>>18263011
I reminisce that anamnesis is wrong.

[Anonymous No.18263598]

>>18263538
Damn, we got a new paradox.

[Anonymous No.18264649]

bump.

[Anonymous No.18264655]

>>18263538
Can you have past memories of not existing?

[Anonymous No.18264668]

>>18263417
This image is dumb and I don't like it.

[Anonymous No.18264673]

>>18263011
out of all of plato's philosophy you choose that shit? literally completely debunked by neuroscience

[Anonymous No.18264724]

>>18264673
How so?

[Anonymous No.18265400]

>>18264673
Filtered.

[Anonymous No.18265978]

>>18264673
>debunked by neuroscience
We are reaching bugman levels that shouldn't be possible

[Anonymous No.18266008]

You first have to believe there is a soul at all, that it's a real thing and not a trick of grammar.

[Anonymous No.18266037]

There is no such thing as anamnesis, some forms of knowledge literally evolved into our physical bodies.

The human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long, that means there are roughly 4^3bn different possible base pair combinations. That's obviously incredibly large.. and some forms of physical a priori knowledge are so useful, such as geometric notions, it's very conceivable that, after evolving a brain, evolution would tend to push brains towards small amounts of a priori understandings that are functionally very useful.

You don't need spirit ghosty reincarnation faggy stuff to see this

[Anonymous No.18266045]

>>18266037
I too fucking love science

[Anonymous No.18266093]

>>18263011
Anamnesis implies that we have innate knowledge that we "rediscover" in the course of life. But whether this "undiscovered knowledge" is innate or aquired makes no difference in practice because you still come to discover it through experience.
Also, if knowledge is innate it must be absolutely true. Why would we have relative or uncertain knowledge imprinted in us, let alone false knowledge? But this is evident that all knowledge is relative and none is absolute.
I would recommend you to read Locke.

[Anonymous No.18266102]

>>18266037
You speak of evolution as if it were a force of its own.

[Anonymous No.18266116]

>>18266093
Am I being memed or are you seriously advocating for some sense data psychological epistemology?
>But this is evident that all knowledge is relative and none is absolute.
Is that evidence absolute?
>if knowledge is innate it must be absolutely true.
No.
>I would recommend you to read Locke.
You could have kept reading and not skip Leibniz.

[Anonymous No.18266126]

>>18266008
The existence of souls is a mathematical fact.

[Anonymous No.18266135]

>>18266037
>The human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long, that means there are roughly 4^3bn different possible base pair combinations. That's obviously incredibly large.. and some forms of physical a priori knowledge are so useful, such as geometric notions, it's very conceivable that, after evolving a brain, evolution would tend to push brains towards small amounts of a priori understandings that are functionally very useful.
The human genome could not even exist theoretically without A PRIORI geometric axioms as its foundation, which must necessarily exist before those chemical elements can even begin to form humans or the human mind. Talk about missing the point. Genomic base pairs are literal geometric shapes which can only exist according to a priori rules as the necessary basis of their existence. This has nothing to do with ghosts or reincarnation.

[Anonymous No.18266141]

Anamnesis was Plato's first foray into Absolute Idealism, a task he later completes in the Parmenides and Timaeus with the de-struktion of the Forms and the concept of the Moment. Timaeus-Critias basically paves the way for a full-blown Naturphilosophie, all of this makes a lot of sense once you realize that all of the major Absolute Idealists were loyal to Plato, even over Kant and Fichte.

[Anonymous No.18266146]

>>18263011
If by anamnesis is meant the recollection of knowledge which is demonstrable a priori (i.e. geometry demonstrations) then Plato's theory makes sense. If by anamnesis is meant the recollection of any knowledge whatsoever (a priori and a posteriori) then it makes none.

[Anonymous No.18266173]

>>18266116
>Is that evidence absolute?
It is an a priori statement. It is not knowledge per se if by "knowledge" we mean something aquired from experience.
>No.
Then why we would possess innacurate knowledge? And how it is even possible to possess erroneous knowledge prior to acknowledging it? Also, how unacknowledged knowledge is even possible?

[Anonymous No.18266284]

>>18266173
>It is an a priori statement. It is not knowledge per se if by "knowledge" we mean something aquired from experience.
Well that's a very convenient redefinition out of the blue, especially to discuss Plato.
>Then why we would possess innacurate knowledge?
The question of why is quite separate from knowing whether it happens. We form judgements, some true and some false.
>possible to possess erroneous knowledge prior to acknowledging it?
That only makes sense by assuming that "knowledge" is only used for my mind actually performing a conscious judgement. It's fair enough if we agree to it but in that case the argument is a trite tautology completely missing the point. Plato obviously means that there are unconscious content of judgements in our minds that we only later (re)acknowledge.
You could say we have no way to recognize it before recognizing it but this is the same argument as "the tree wasn't there until we saw it". Which is a based view but quite far form Locke.

[Anonymous No.18266309]

>>18264724
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory

>>18265400
>>18265978
retards

[Anonymous No.18266319]

>>18266141
>Parmenides
that obscure dialogue doesn't complete anything, if anything it raises metaphysical questions which haven't been answered to this day
>Timaeus
its cosmology was refuted by modern physics

[Anonymous No.18266411]

>>18263417
This, but unironically.

[Anonymous No.18266671]

>>18266319
I'm sorry for your mental dwarfism anon. Your mother should have smoked less while she was pregnant.

[Anonymous No.18266737]

>>18266093
>uncertain, false knowledge
Do you have an uncertain sense of sameness, difference, less, more?
Plato is not implying you have the date of Kant’s death innate in your soul and that you are able to remember it.

[Anonymous No.18267523]

>>18266135
The universe existed before people did. That's not an objection. Geometry did not.

[Anonymous No.18267552]

>>18267523
So wholes and parts must have existed only after human beings started to think about them? Totality, definition, unity. The universe was devoid of all of these until human beings sprang up? You don’t seem to be addressing the point the other anon is trying to make.

[Anonymous No.18267625]

>>18267552
Sure it is, he's confused and he's mixing mathematics with physical space. You cannot ever point to a mathematical triangle in reality, even if you paint one on the wall really accurately it has tiny errors, quivers, etc that make it not perfect.

As soon as you leave reality and start talking about the form of a triangle, you're talking about a concept that only rests in the minds of humans, the faculty for which was produced by evolution.

There's no soul which reincarnated to provide the knowledge of the form of a triangle, it's just written into our DNA to build physical structures in the mind that suggest triangularness.

[Anonymous No.18267673]

>>18267625
Yes, almost as if all representations of a triangle were not the form of triangle huh? Anyhow, can you cease the dogmatism and answer whether there are things which are wholes and parts, limited and defined before our ideas about these?

>written in dna
Written how? Does the matter contain information? What is this information? Is it physical?

[Anonymous No.18267699]

>>18266037
Since when did geometry help anyone get laid?

[Anonymous No.18267711]

>>18267673
>Yes, almost as if all representations of a triangle were not the form of triangle huh? Anyhow, can you cease the dogmatism and answer whether there are things which are wholes and parts, limited and defined before our ideas about these?
I'm not answering because you're plainly trying to do a Socrates larp, you've read too much plato lmao

>Written how? Does the matter contain information? What is this information? Is it physical?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Come on anon, you have a college degree right? They make you learn this shit in your intro courses.

[Anonymous No.18267721]

>>18264673
Level 1 is realizing that you are not your arms/legs/hands/feet, that you are the brain controlling those appendages.

Level 99 is realizing that you are not the brain controlling those appendages, you are the soul controlling that brain

[Anonymous No.18267746]

>>18267711
Well, if you refuse to answer a simple question then there is no conversation. At least it is clear to everyone here how you operate.

>I make some other questions about what he himself asserted
>links wikipedia page

I was genuinely not trying do do anything Plato did but I’m satisfied how you end up looking like an idiot in the same way the dumbest and most arrogant interlocutors of Socrates did.

[Anonymous No.18267812]

>>18264673
It could be argued that, since the number of neurons has no direct correlation with knowledge, knowledge is produced through a change in the organization of the neurons. Someone learning a new thing is just the (almost) static number of neurons in his head reorganizing themselves into a new structure (form), a structure that was inherent in the brain as a possibility from the get go.

[Anonymous No.18267895]

Anamnesis has to be the most retarded theory I've ever heard. Wow, gee, how could anyone possibly tell if something is true or not if they didn't magically already know it from a previous life? Just because Plato thought a slave was too stupid to possibly understand math without literally being told the answers. Then again, I can sympathize with him believing humans are braindead automatons only capable of being fed information if there's people that genuinely believe his bullshit.

[Anonymous No.18268236]

>>18267895
The doctrine of reminiscence is a metaphor. Nice way to expose yourself as a literal braindead lol.

[Anonymous No.18268239]

>>18267895
Good to see a fellow Fucking Science! lover here. In this moment we are euphoric, not becase of any phony god but because of the light of our own intelligence.

[Anonymous No.18268308]

>>18263011
I was gonna contribute with a long insightful post but halfway through I forgot what I wanted to say. I hope some other anon remembers and posts it.

[Anonymous No.18268796]

>>18263011
OP, there are some people here denying it, so it seems you were wrong when you said it is “literally impossible” to deny it. Better luck next time

[Anonymous No.18268936]

>>18267812
That would be an argument related to consciousness as an phenomenon not being entirely materialistic even if it's related to neurons which are. I don't see how your conclusions would lead to Plato's anamnesis shit being true.

[Anonymous No.18269311]

>>18267711
>"DNA" describing itself as DNA
>bro its JUST SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.18269647]

>>18267895
>Just because Plato thought a slave was too stupid to possibly understand math without literally being told the answers.
Thats literally the opposite of his point

[Anonymous No.18269652]

>“All that is outside, also is inside,” we could say with Goethe. But this “inside,” which modern rationalism is so eager to derive from “outside,” has an a priori structure of its own that antedates all conscious experience. It is quite impossible to conceive how “experience” in the widest sense, or, for that matter, anything psychic, could originate exclusively in the outside world. The psyche is part of the inmost mystery of life, and it has its own peculiar structure and form like every other organism. Whether this psychic structure and its elements, the archetypes, ever “originated” at all is a metaphysical question and therefore unanswerable. The structure is something given, the precondition that is found to be present in every case. And this is the mother, the matrix—the form into which all experience is poured.
>In former times, despite some dissenting opinion and the influence of Aristotle, it was not too difficult to understand Plato's conception of the Idea as supraordinate and pre-existent to all phenomena. "Archetype," far from being a modern term, was already in use before the time of St. Augustine, and was synonymous with "Idea" in the Platonic usage. When the Corpus Hermeticum, which probably dates from the third century, describes God as το άρχίτνπ-ον φώς, the 'archetypal light,' it expresses the idea that he is the prototype of all light; that is to say, pre-existent and supraordinate to the phenomenon "light."

People are still people filtered by the Forms I see.

[Anonymous No.18269676]

>>18268236
Plato takes it pretty seriously in the Phaedo

[Anonymous No.18269692]

>>18269652
pseud shit

[Anonymous No.18269754]

>>18269676
read more plato, then you will realize how he repeatedly asserts how images, allegories, myths are useful to impart knowledge, or literally, actualize it.
nothing plato wrote is his taking seriously to the point of saying what he says in the phaedrus that should not be said, written.

[Anonymous No.18269839]

Sooooo

Whats the fucking deal with this.

[Anonymous No.18270534]

>>18267721
Isn't it interesting how the brain is the instrument which you sense the world through?

[Anonymous No.18270583]

>>18269692
Cope.

[Anonymous No.18270607]

>>18270534
Not that guy but the brain is the mind’s representation of itself

[Anonymous No.18270637]

>>18269839
as long as he's not LARPing in threads just let him market his work toward his demographic

[Anonymous No.18271759]

bump.

[Anonymous No.18272211]

>>18267746
You're probably sitting here smugly, thinking you've won the debate, feeling self assured.

Feel more assured that nobody will ever take anamnesis seriously, and by extension you seriously. You don't matter and worrying about this shit you're worrying about is part of why you'll never matter.

[Anonymous No.18272217]

>>18269311
It's simple information theory anon. The human genome has more than enough information to embed complex algorithms. The genetic code to create brain structures which presuppose certain kinds of thoughts could easily be there.

A million times more plausible than the shit-arse weak arguments of the Phaedo. Socrates was a mentally ill loser anyway who committed suicide because he couldn't handle his senses being inaccurate

[Anonymous No.18272247]

bump

[Anonymous No.18272325]

>>18266411
Who is the Chad in the pic?

[Anonymous No.18273125]

bump

[Anonymous No.18273510]

>>18267721
If you split a live brain in two, two independent minds form. If the soul is not just a product of the brain functioning then how can this be the case?

[Anonymous No.18273521]

>>18270607
I think you put the words brain and mind the wrong way round, fren.

[Anonymous No.18273645]

>>18273125
No they don't, you just kill someone and get two dead halves of a brain.

[Anonymous No.18273696]

>>18273645
No. Corpus collosotomy surgery keeps people alive but their two brain-halves exhibit all features of being individuals except that only one can talk. They both can, for example, cry at seeing a sad image (even when only one is aware of the image), laugh at funny photo, react to their environments and have plans, desires and emotions which can run independently of each other.

[Anonymous No.18273704]

>>18267625
Original guy you were arguing with returning. Hmm, your entire line of argument seems to be more and more embarrassing. You could at least try to learn some philosophy before just pulling the "science" card, which invalidates virtually nothing due to the fact it is inductive rather than deductive to begin with.

>even if you paint one on the wall really accurately it has tiny errors, quivers, etc that make it not perfect.
So your entire argument rests upon the belief that, because a perfect triangle cannot exist physically, therefore triangles do not exist? You believe there is no real difference, in reality, not in the human mind, between a shape that is "approximately" a rectangle, and a shape that is "approximately" a triangle, even those these shapes not only have different geometric properties (which you consider a figment of human imagination), but also entirely different physical properties, which determine their behaviour in the physical universe?

>As soon as you leave reality and start talking about the form of a triangle
I would say that is moving closer to reality, rather than "leaving" reality. Scientists fail to realize that, even with their own scientific theories, the goal is always to move closer to the general rather than the specific, precisely because the general is more real than the specific.

>There's no soul which reincarnated to provide the knowledge of the form of a triangle
Where is your proof? (Not that I even particularly care about this point)
> it's just written into our DNA to build physical structures in the mind that suggest triangularness.
Where is your proof? How can you assert this vis a vis the equally plausible idea that what is written into our DNA is actually the faculty of interpreting REALITY as it is? Where is your proof that the human mind conjures up illusions, as opposed to accurately grasping reality? Wouldn't we be more successful as organisms if we could accurately grasp reality, as it is? This would enable us to propagate the species more effectively, which is what evolutionists love to build their arguments upon. I have no problem with this hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.18273706]

>>18273696
>corpus collostomy
Not the brain

[Anonymous No.18273709]

>>18273696
Cite your source because everything I've ever seen suggests that something that severe would completely destroy vital parts of the brainstem and such.

[Anonymous No.18273729]

>>18273696
They've been surgically turned into a schizo where they no longer have a fully integrated mind. You didn't make two minds you just fucked one up a whole lot. People with organic brain damage can get split personality too, it's just a single mind malfunctioning and not recognizing its own continuity.

[Anonymous No.18273739]

>>18263417
Plato himself could have made that meme

[Anonymous No.18273742]

>>18273706
How is it not the brain, it's the main trunking between hemispheres. It's nerves. Are you thinking of the corpus cavernosum, coomer?

>>18273709
It's just the communication between hemispheres of the telencephalon that are severed, meaning higher processes are sequestered into two halves. You leave the brainstem well alone.

See Gazzaniga's publications, but the original work was done by Roger Sperry. This was done for treating epilepsy and is less needed now because our surgical techniques and medical treatments have advanced significantly. Hence, data is old, but the patients are still kicking about.

[Anonymous No.18273749]

>>18264673
you once were merely the One, but got instantiated. when you collect knowledge about the universe, you are only recollecting fragments of the One, being closer to be the One, that once was complety satisfied by his mere existence, but no longer. keep in mind this is a logical succession not a temporal one.

[Anonymous No.18273964]

>>18273696
>>18273510
It is not two minds. Both crying makes no distiction at all, one being aware and the other not means nothing insofar as the person will be aware.
This >>18273729 is obviously the case.

[Anonymous No.18274199]

>>18263011
Where are Plato's pupils

[Anonymous No.18274382]

>>18273729
You are understandably confused. Schizophrenia, despite the etymology of the name, does not have two conscious minds. Split brain patients have two minds that exhibit all features of a whole mind. There is no question of the mind not recognising its own contiguity, because the contiguity has been physically severed. There is no question of the mind functioning as a mind because both perform intelligently without the other side being aware of input or output.

[Anonymous No.18274391]

>>18273964
Assume your mind is not connected to mine. How is that seperation phenomenologically distinct from these patients' apart from proximity?

[Anonymous No.18274465]

>>18274391
>>18274382
I'll answer in a single post. It is difficult to assert anything about it because it is barely possible to conceive what it is like having two minds independent of each other as you claim.
Separation are distinct because of unity. This implies each mind is uniquely a single one mind, implying they function each in their own way according to their own activity, will. From this you may infer what having two minds may imply to each other and mainly to a single person.

[Anonymous No.18274552]

>>18272217
>simple information theory anon
Want me to tell you how I know you've never studied "information theory" formally?
>more than enough information to embed complex algorithms
you don't know what the word algorithm means, or what it would mean for an algorithm to be complex.
I fucking hate people like you that have never done any math in their entire lives cooming your brains out to epic science man jargon.

[Anonymous No.18274596]

>>18263011
Making a clever enough argument that someone can't falsify it isn't the same thing as proving that thing is true.

[Anonymous No.18274727]

>>18274596
Why do you people always keep bringing falsifiability into what is out of its own scope? Metaphysics is not empirical and is not the scope of (modern) science to examine it.

[Anonymous No.18274771]

>>18274465
I would suggest that if the minds can experience emotions, react to stimuli, and hold contradictory thoughts independently and unaware of each other then they are separate. Do you disagree?

[Anonymous No.18274883]

>>18274771
This is not the fulcrum of the question. Reaction implies a relation of givenness and receptivity. How can there be independent and different conscious relations with the same external stimuli that is, giveness? The only possibility of any coherence to what you are saying is that a mind can be aware of what it is not aware of.

[Anonymous No.18275003]

>>18273510
>>18274391
Anon, you are missing the point completely. If a soul controls the brain, then splitting the brain just means that you will have the same soul controlling two different "bridges" to the physical world that input and output different data. It'd be like having the same person play two video games on two separate PCs at the same time.

[Anonymous No.18275263]

>>18275003
Why would the single soul counteract its own simultaneous behaviours? Why would it have two parts with differential awareness of stimuli?

[Anonymous No.18275304]

>>18275263
What are you talking about? I don't understand. If you attend to two separate tasks with your two separate arms, does that mean that your mind has split? No. It's just expressing itself in a different way in different contexts.

[Anonymous No.18275391]

>>18275263
I have the impression that even you are confused about what you claim. Answer this >>18274883, how can sense perception occur in two different awarenesses? Either they will be aware of the same thing (and react in different ways, a pertinent possibility insofar as there are physiological reactions all the time) or either of the awarenesses will be aware of what it is not aware, aware of any other thing implying literally anything.

[Anonymous No.18275524]

>>18273704
>So your entire argument rests upon the belief that, because a perfect triangle cannot exist physically, therefore triangles do not exist?
No I just cited Plato lmao. I'm giving you the most straightforward Platonic argument here.

>Wouldn't we be more successful as organisms if we could accurately grasp reality, as it is?
Just because a mental concept isn't found in reality doesn't mean it's not useful for living in reality.

You really are a pretentious twat, image linked because Schopenhauer's mom might as well be writing to you.

[Anonymous No.18275528]

>>18274552
I literally have a master's degree in math so flail harder you retard.

[Anonymous No.18275564]

>>18275528
Not that anon and I haven't read any of your context, but in my experience there is no contradiction between what he said and you claiming to have a math degree. I am yet to see a mathematician that actually understands what an algorithm is. Most just stick to learning how to make the numbers go pop.

[Anonymous No.18275608]

>>18275564
Sure, I mean, I havent worked cover to cover from Kleen's intro to metamathematics, so I probably don't have the most rigorous understanding of algorithms possible. But I genuinely don't understand the autistic rage of retarded nerds on this site.

From time to time I come to /lit/ and often just turn around and leave because the social skills are so poor here.

[Anonymous No.18275637]

>>18275608
If I may try and explain, I think it is because this place is basically a hub of alternate thought where people with 105-145 IQ who hate the current intellectual models of society gather to discuss the world. Basedbug science has a total and unquestionable cultural hegemony everywhere else, so by signalling your affinity with it, you are triggering the fight or flight response of every midwit and topwit on this board. Being a brilliant, humble topwit dissident myself, I can certainly vouch that seeing anyone so much as vaguely mention "the scientific method" or any other common Enlightenment tropes sends me into a three day and three night long rage-fuelled frenzy.

[Anonymous No.18275653]

>>18275637
TIL that the jannies have expaded the word filters to also cover the use of the word 'soi' even when it is directly linked to other text. Wonderful, just wonderful.

[Anonymous No.18276214]

>>18275304
Sorry fren I'm obviously not being clear. I will try again.
> If you attend to two separate tasks with your two separate arms, does that mean that your mind has split? No. It's just expressing itself in a different way in different contexts.
Could you have a situation where you were doing this but the tasks contradicted each other and each task-doing part of your mind was unaware of the sensory inputs thoughts and rationale for actions of the other part?
If it was you who used the example of the guy controlling 2 PC games, I guess the question would be: could you play two PC games with your mind only knowing it was playing one (but there being two parts that were doing so). Could you play yourself at chess without knowing you were doing so? I don't believe this is possible with a single mind.

>>18275391
>>18274883
Sense perception can occur in two different awarenesses if each awareness has it's own sensor (e.g. 1 eye each).
>The only possibility of any coherence to what you are saying is that a mind can be aware of what it is not aware of.
No. I am saying that each mind is not aware of what the other is thinking, or, if only one is exposed to a stimulus, of that information. If both experience a given stimulus then both are aware of that stimulus. They will not, however, know how or why the other brain-half is responding to that stimulus. This, I think, cannot be explained with a shared mind. Even if you call one part of the brain the subconscious, as Curtis spuriously does, when you do so you are only picking that half because it is unable to talk, and of course, the output of the subconscious, if such a thing were to exist, would ultimately be the same limbs, the same tears and laughter as those of the conscious mind.

>Answer this >>18274883, how can sense perception occur in two different awarenesses? Either they will be aware of the same thing (and react in different ways, a pertinent possibility insofar as there are physiological reactions all the time) or either of the awarenesses will be aware of what it is not aware, aware of any other thing implying literally anything.
Imagine a split brain patient is looking at a page. Their right arm begins to draw a house. Both halves of the brain see it, the left brain through the right halves of each eye, and the right brain through the left halves of each eye. The left brain, controlling the right hand, is pleased with what it is doing. The right brain sees the house but hates it. It uses the left arm to scrub it out with an eraser just as the right hand keeps drawing. Until the left brain sees the left arm scrubbing out the image, it will have had no idea what the right brain thought of the image. How can this be explained by a single mind? I'm not trying to be a dick, I am interested to to try to understand how you parse this phenomenon in a single mind.

[Anonymous No.18276236]

>>18266037
>some forms of knowledge literally evolved into our physical bodies.
Evolution is so gay lmao

[Anonymous No.18276287]

>>18276214
>Could you have a situation where you were doing this but the tasks contradicted each other and each task-doing part of your mind was unaware of the sensory inputs thoughts and rationale for actions of the other part?
>If it was you who used the example of the guy controlling 2 PC games, I guess the question would be: could you play two PC games with your mind only knowing it was playing one (but there being two parts that were doing so). Could you play yourself at chess without knowing you were doing so? I don't believe this is possible with a single mind.
Your reasoning rests on the premise that your hypothetical soul would be hypothetically unaware of the split. In other words, you would be conflating the mind conceived in materialist and neurological terms with the concept of the soul. According to the situation anon described, the soul uses the brain as a tool to express itself in the material world. From the perspective of the body, you might see a "splitting", but from the perspective of the soul you would just be expressing your awareness through two subordinate channels that by no means affect the soul itself. In other words, you would go from using both for a single task to using each hand for a separate task. There would be a splitting of resources, but not a splitting of essence - kind of like an army that separates into two different units but is still guided by the same strategy. Alternatively, if you want to push the arm metaphor further, imagine that each of your arms is separated from you by means of teleportation but somehow you can still control them. You can be doing two completely and utterly disconnected things with your arms, that share absolutely nothing in common, including no shared context, yet you would still be a single intelligence guiding those arms. The same principle would apply here. One of my favourite thinkers likes to use a term that I think would be fitting here - that of "taking a perspective from below". If you take the perspective of the brain, yes, you will inevitably see a split, just like how if you take the perspective of an arm that has spent its life working in tandem with another one would suddenly find itself diminished in half. However, this does not imply the existence of a split from a higher perspective, where the technical side of operation may change but the essence and principle remains the same.

[Anonymous No.18276306]

>>18276287
Ah, I think where we've differed in perception is I've assumed the soul is conscious and that one's consciousness is that of the soul. If that is not the case, and the soul has thoughts and feelings distinct from the mind, then the split brain example does not say anything about the soul. Basically I was conflating soul with mind, which was foolish.

[Anonymous No.18276418]

>>18276306
Personally, I assign the faculty of awareness to the soul, but other activity to the mind.

[Anonymous No.18276434]

In Meno, anamnesis was a concept Socrates invented to trick Meno into not being an intellectual slob. The whole thing was a parable Plato created not to take literally.

[Anonymous No.18276464]

>>18276214
>Sense perception can occur in two different awarenesses if each awareness has it's own sensor (e.g. 1 eye each).
So what they see is the same thing, the givenness will be the same, therefore they will be aware of the same thing?

>This, I think, cannot be explained with a shared mind.
What they receive will be the same, no? The receptor must either be the same or they will not receive the same, otherwise it would fall into what I said about the break of givenness and receptivity and thus one being aware of something not given at all.

>the same tears and laughter as those of the conscious mind.
And what you are relating sounds exactly like it. They are the same Subject, the same Consciousness however with discordant responses, there is no two different conscious intentionalities and receptivities (that would lead to what I said already).

>Imagine a split brain patient is looking at a page...
Is this even the case, lol? That because of a part of the brain's constitution is split the whole perception will be split and the consciousness will be split? Regardless of that you are proposing an intentional activity of part of a consciousness different from the intentionality of the other part of the consciousness, that is, the person having two wills, two activities and two consciousness! Nothing of this makes the least sense. Do you not have any study about such a phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.18276480]

>>18272217
>human brains can do calculus because it is a useful trait for surviving in the jungle.
This is literally what you’re saying right niw

[Anonymous No.18276489]

>>18276434
So why are you taking it literally and missing the deeper meaning?

[Anonymous No.18276718]

>>18276489
You must think I'm someone else. That was the first and only post I made in this thread. I did my PhD in classics (many years ago) and for some reason felt compelled to clear up the confusion here.

[Anonymous No.18276741]

>>18276434
pseud take

[Anonymous No.18276745]

>>18264673
Doesn't neuroscience, not to mention DNA, cement it even further?

[Anonymous No.18276750]

>>18276741
I wrote a whole book about it. I'm sure if you'd let me explain you wouldn't think it is so stupid.

[Anonymous No.18276780]

>>18276745
care to elaborate?