Scan barcode
bechols's review against another edition
5.0
Right up my alley. The analogies we choose both help and hinder reasoning, brains are just so complicated, philosophy asks some good questions without good answers, etc.
bootman's review against another edition
5.0
What a fantastic book! I've been meaning to read it for months because I love neuroscience, but I was worried the book wouldn't live up to the hype. Cobb did an incredible job diving into the history of neuroscience and how we came to learn about how the brain functions. I'm not huge into history, so the first half was kind of slow. I mainly got this book for the chapters on consciousness, neurotransmitters, how fMRI's work and more of the modern stuff. Although the first half was slow for me, it was still super interesting. I think what I loved the most about the book is that when Cobb gets to the chapters on more modern neuroscience, he discusses the debates around the different topics and explains how there's still a ton that we don't know.
achoward's review against another edition
4.0
I picked this up because I've always had a fascination with the brain - how can this person understand rocket science, while this person is better at literature, and how do people view (and/or value) these rather divergent types of development through their own lenses?
If you're after a very detailed, rather academic sort of book examining the ways people throughout history have viewed the brain, this is the book for you. It comes across as a bit dry, as many overviews of anything do, but it does not stray into the weeds to become completely unreadable. You do need to be ready and alert to read it in order to understand the transitions and shifts of thinking throughout history about the organ that allows us to think.
If you're a citation kind of person, this is also for you: as with other academic type books of this nature, there are loads of materials one could go find and read, if one were interested in continuing to delve into neurology and the general history of how we view the rather precious blob that sits inside our skulls.
Four stars.
Thanks to NetGalley and Perseus/Basic Books for the reading copy.
If you're after a very detailed, rather academic sort of book examining the ways people throughout history have viewed the brain, this is the book for you. It comes across as a bit dry, as many overviews of anything do, but it does not stray into the weeds to become completely unreadable. You do need to be ready and alert to read it in order to understand the transitions and shifts of thinking throughout history about the organ that allows us to think.
If you're a citation kind of person, this is also for you: as with other academic type books of this nature, there are loads of materials one could go find and read, if one were interested in continuing to delve into neurology and the general history of how we view the rather precious blob that sits inside our skulls.
Four stars.
Thanks to NetGalley and Perseus/Basic Books for the reading copy.
pistachio9's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.75
ledge's review against another edition
4.0
Really fascinating overview of the past, present, and future of our knowledge of the brain, showing how far we have come and how much further we have to go. The author is suitably sceptical on all sorts of areas (fMRI, the chemical imbalance theory of depression, The Human Brain Project...) but ultimately optimistic that we will find the answers, even if it's 100 years or more hence.
The only criticism I have is that, though the book is largely about the science, where it deals with philosophy it is rather unsatisfactory. In particular it deals with the hard problem rather perfunctorily - in order to abandon materialist approaches it says 'we would need [...] inexplicable experimental results that contradict the materialist working hypothesis'. We already have those in the form of our everyday experience, which in its private, subjective, qualitative nature is fundamentally unlike anything science (not just neuroscience but all science) tells us about the public, objective, quantitative material world. Though I don't doubt that the materialist hypothesis will eventually provide us with neurological correlates of consciousness, how matter actually produces, or instantiates, or 'is' mind, is likely to be a mystery for a lot longer.
The only criticism I have is that, though the book is largely about the science, where it deals with philosophy it is rather unsatisfactory. In particular it deals with the hard problem rather perfunctorily - in order to abandon materialist approaches it says 'we would need [...] inexplicable experimental results that contradict the materialist working hypothesis'. We already have those in the form of our everyday experience, which in its private, subjective, qualitative nature is fundamentally unlike anything science (not just neuroscience but all science) tells us about the public, objective, quantitative material world. Though I don't doubt that the materialist hypothesis will eventually provide us with neurological correlates of consciousness, how matter actually produces, or instantiates, or 'is' mind, is likely to be a mystery for a lot longer.
bookanonjeff's review against another edition
5.0
Comprehensive Review of The Field. Cobb seems to do a spectacular job here of giving a general overview of neurotypical neuroscience, from the earliest ways man thought about his brain and cognition to the most current of state of the field in some situations - one citation in particular was from 2019! He doesn't really address neurological divergences at all, instead focusing on the brain as it is understood for most. But within what he decides to address, this book seemingly gives a very solid, very comprehensive overview of the actual science of the brain. Decently easy to follow as long as you're ready for an academic review, this book really does what it sets out to do, no more, no less. Very much recommended.