The Argument from Split-Brain is based on the observation that people who have had their brains split into two hemispheres often behave as if they have two separate minds. This suggests that the mind is not a unified entity, but rather a collection of separate modules that are responsible for different functions.

The evidence for the Argument from Split-Brain comes from studies of people who have had their brains split into two hemispheres. These studies have shown that these people often behave as if they have two separate minds. For example, they may be able to answer questions with their left hand that they cannot answer with their right hand, and they may have different preferences and beliefs for each hemisphere.

The implications of the Argument from Split-Brain are that the mind is not a unified entity, but rather a collection of separate modules that are responsible for different functions. This has led some philosophers to argue that the mind is not a substance, but rather a process.

There are a number of objections to the Argument from Split-Brain. One objection is that it is based on a small number of cases. Another objection is that the results of split-brain studies are not always consistent. A third objection is that the Argument from Split-Brain relies on a narrow definition of consciousness. A fourth objection is that the Argument from Split-Brain does not take into account the possibility of interhemispheric communication.

The Argument from Split-Brain has been used in philosophy to argue against the idea that the mind is a unified entity. This argument has been used by philosophers such as Daniel Dennett and Patricia Churchland to argue that the mind is not a substance, but rather a process.