4 ms·
>I don't know that it's really testable or really applicable to anything I haven't yet read the book and I'm not sure if it applies, but I found these papers i
by antisemiotic 7y ago
>I don't know that it's really testable or really applicable to anything
I haven't yet read the book and I'm not sure if it applies, but I found these papers interesting:
* "The case for mental duality" (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00007755 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00007755)
* "The case against mental duality" (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686749 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686749)
- beagle3 7y agoFrom the abstract, these seem to refer to the physical duality (left hemisphere vs right hemisphere) which Jaynes does postulate. Personally, I look at his philosophy at a more abstract level - I think it's less important to pinpoint the spatial location (and more prone to be wrong given his 1975-era knowledge, although he was IIUC more right than wrong with his predictions that later became testable); rather, the idea that there's more than one "self". This was taken, in some ways ad absurdum, by Tony Wright in "Left in the Dark" / "Return to the brain of Eden" - which is also an interesting read, though I can't decide if it's science or science fiction.
- antisemiotic 7y agoIf you want more than the abstract, the friendly Russian site is now at .se ;) Pinpointing the spatial location of separate "selves" makes the hypoteses more testable (by examining split-brain patients or temporarily disabling one hemisphere od healthy ones). Actually, the second paper concludes that while the view that each human has two concurrent consciousnesses is most likely wrong, the reality might be even weirder (multiple intermingling "selves").
- beagle3 7y agoMore testable, but potentially too detailed thus leading one astray. My impression is that the intermingling selves are indeed more likely.