Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.92 AVERAGE
3.92 AVERAGE
I thought this book was pretty boring-- packed with information, but rarely put into a context where it made itself relevant. I wondered often in the first chapters where this was going-- I mean, it's great, I guess, to challenge the prevailing assumptions about brain biology. But I don't have some of those assumptions, as a lay reader, so this book was, for me at least, missing a clear argument, just as it focused on stuff that is sort of immaterial, in a literal, I can't see or handle this, kind of way.
I did enjoy where it ended up-- I appreciate the way Eagleman wants to reform sentencing based on the facts he develops about brain biology, and to me, that was where the book really found its footing, in the last couple chapters but one. I kind of wish he'd used that to frame the entire book, since once you get there, it kind of feels like that's where he's been going all along.
People I know love Eagleman's use of metaphors to compare the book to this and that; I found it kind of silly and not-totally-effective, and the way he sort of uncritically developed his own language, or burned in subroutines, which is itself a metaphor, struck me as a little weird. I liked his little stories about people who had brain abnormalities-- who doesn't love these kinds of odd stories-- but I liked them less than I do in books by Oliver Sacks, where they seem informed by wonder and compassion. Here, it felt a little detached.
I did enjoy where it ended up-- I appreciate the way Eagleman wants to reform sentencing based on the facts he develops about brain biology, and to me, that was where the book really found its footing, in the last couple chapters but one. I kind of wish he'd used that to frame the entire book, since once you get there, it kind of feels like that's where he's been going all along.
People I know love Eagleman's use of metaphors to compare the book to this and that; I found it kind of silly and not-totally-effective, and the way he sort of uncritically developed his own language, or burned in subroutines, which is itself a metaphor, struck me as a little weird. I liked his little stories about people who had brain abnormalities-- who doesn't love these kinds of odd stories-- but I liked them less than I do in books by Oliver Sacks, where they seem informed by wonder and compassion. Here, it felt a little detached.
He provides a lot of accessible metaphors to help visualize what is going on in the brain.
Loving this book!
Being a teacher of the more mystical things, yet a scientist at heart, this book helped me create bridges between the science of what we experience consciously and the unexplainable difference in perceptions and experiences that we all have. I'm not done with it yet, but can't imagine my view turning downward in opinion any time soon.
Being a teacher of the more mystical things, yet a scientist at heart, this book helped me create bridges between the science of what we experience consciously and the unexplainable difference in perceptions and experiences that we all have. I'm not done with it yet, but can't imagine my view turning downward in opinion any time soon.
I thought this book was fascinating in the beginning, but then petered out a little towards the end. I was not particularly interested in the discussion about brain science and the legal system. Overall, though, I did enjoy the book. I just wanted to learn more cool things about the brain, and Eaglemen seemed to get away from that in the later chapters.
Check out Goodreads reviewer, Elliot. I can't top it. Note to self: Read more Steven Pinker.
A wonderful, engrossing book. Just a smattering of stuff I learned: People more often get married to others with the same first letter of their first name than would be expected by chance. (It's called implicit egotism.) Women's cycles don't really become synchronized when they live together, sorry, sitcom writers. The illusion-of-truth effect means you're more likely to believe that a statement is true if you've heard it before, even if you're told the statement is false. Julian Jaynes' 1976 theory about the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind (a personal favorite) is still being explored. Our minds are driven toward "patternicity," attempting to find structure in meaningless data; evolution favors pattern seeking because it allows the possibility of reducing mysteries to fast, efficient programs in the neural circuitry. Finally, Eagleman poses some provocative questions. Knowing what we've learned about the brain and its biology, what's the best way to deal with criminals? Will we discover a connection between quantum mechanics (and the concept of observation) and consciousness? (Do human minds interact with the stuff of the universe?)
What an interesting book! The brain is an amazing thing, for sure. This book made me realize how much scientists have learned about the brain and how little they still know. I most liked the book when the author was describing studies or recounting anecdotes to illustrate something about the brain (like the blind mountain climber who "sees" with an electronic grid on his tongue - I know, crazy, right?!!) I was less interested in the more technical parts and the section where he seems to go on and on about how to punish criminals and if criminals are really accountable for their crimes when there is something chemical going on in their brains. That part got really repetitive. But I feel smarter having read this book, even though I will probably forget all the interesting things I learned when I try to tell someone about it. (It's the RadioLab phenomenon!)
Very good book describing in layman's terms the intricacies of the known brain. References a number of other literature or scientists for further study and provides a number of examples with statistics and research. (Some not so believable, ie: people marry other people with the same first letter of their first name.. I don't even know anybody that did that!!)
Nice book except last chapter. If you like science fiction do yourself a favor, doesn’t read last few pages, otherwise you can ruin the experience of the whole book :)