jmcphers's review against another edition
Let me start by being perfectly honest. I'm a Christian, and I also like books about the brain and physics. This can be challenging, because from a scientific standpoint it sort of looks like there is nothing that suggests that our consciousness is anything besides an accidental side-effect of evolution, a sort of humming generated by the chemical impulses swirling around our forebrains. I was hoping to find out (yes: I can hear it now, the whole chorus of you, frowning upon me for seeking out evidence for an already arrived-upon conclusion) that scientific evidence itself suggests that there is something more to what makes us us than mere brain activity.
Alva's arguments, however, have nothing to do with metaphysics and everything to do with the definition of consciousness itself. This was why, while the book was fascinating, I also found it ultimately unfulfilling. He succeeds in demonstrating that a solid definition of consciousness (as he puts it: that the world shows up for us) must not limit itself to brain activity. But he does so with arguments that sometimes don't seem to follow logically until you read them two or three times, and even then seem questionable. One is left with the feeling that he has redefined what is meant by consciousness to encompass a larger picture of our experience in the world, and then triumphantly shown that according to this definition consciousness requires a world and our interaction with it.
It's a good book if you're interested in the definition of consciousness, and also a good book if you like to read interesting studies of sensory substitution and other such tricks that try to tease out its essence. But I can't wholeheartedly recommend it on the merit of its premise.
Alva's arguments, however, have nothing to do with metaphysics and everything to do with the definition of consciousness itself. This was why, while the book was fascinating, I also found it ultimately unfulfilling. He succeeds in demonstrating that a solid definition of consciousness (as he puts it: that the world shows up for us) must not limit itself to brain activity. But he does so with arguments that sometimes don't seem to follow logically until you read them two or three times, and even then seem questionable. One is left with the feeling that he has redefined what is meant by consciousness to encompass a larger picture of our experience in the world, and then triumphantly shown that according to this definition consciousness requires a world and our interaction with it.
It's a good book if you're interested in the definition of consciousness, and also a good book if you like to read interesting studies of sensory substitution and other such tricks that try to tease out its essence. But I can't wholeheartedly recommend it on the merit of its premise.
rheckner's review against another edition
5.0
Excellent and highly persuasive book. One of the best books in cognitive science I have read.
annttenne's review against another edition
Meiner Ansicht nach viel zusammenhangloses Gerede, ohne roten Faden und ohne auf einen Punkt oder eine Kernaussage zu kommen.
hinda26's review against another edition
3.0
fascinating, I wish it had more empirical studies associated with the claims it made. sometimes the writing got a bit wearisome
psteve's review against another edition
4.0
I'm not qualified to fully judge all the merits of his arguments, but it all seems to make sense. That there is no part of the brain that creates consciousness or that the brain itself is consciousness, but instead consciousness is how the brain interacts with the world. It would be good to read a couple times, and also some long reviews and some books he cites. The book is well-written and easy to understand.
ekfmef's review against another edition
3.0
Dit boek staat blijkbaar t langste op mn to readlijstje, dus hoog tijd om er aan te beginnen!
Eigenlijk is dit een gemiste kans. De leek zal het probleem niet begrijpen en voor de expert gaat Noe veel te kort door de bocht. Ik beschouw mezelf overigens niet als expert, maar als ik 'm al niet geloof met mijn basale neurologische kennis, dan neem ik aan dat de echte neurowetenschapper nog minder overtuigd is. Het had Noe dus gesierd als hij net iets meer de tijd nam om zijn standpunten met verschillende argumenten te onderbouwen, ipv drie keer te herhalen hoe hij net heeft laten zien dat x logischerwijs volgt uit y.
In de latere hoofdstukken kom ik wel interessante stukjes tegen, maar het 'complete plaatje' blijft me onduidelijk. Wat is nou precies het probleem en wat moet er anders? Bert Keizer beschrijft dit boek als zijn inspiratie voor 'waar blijft de ziel' maar dit boek is wat dat betreft veel minder stellig - en minder duidelijk.
Misschien toch zn papers maar opzoeken...
Eigenlijk is dit een gemiste kans. De leek zal het probleem niet begrijpen en voor de expert gaat Noe veel te kort door de bocht. Ik beschouw mezelf overigens niet als expert, maar als ik 'm al niet geloof met mijn basale neurologische kennis, dan neem ik aan dat de echte neurowetenschapper nog minder overtuigd is. Het had Noe dus gesierd als hij net iets meer de tijd nam om zijn standpunten met verschillende argumenten te onderbouwen, ipv drie keer te herhalen hoe hij net heeft laten zien dat x logischerwijs volgt uit y.
In de latere hoofdstukken kom ik wel interessante stukjes tegen, maar het 'complete plaatje' blijft me onduidelijk. Wat is nou precies het probleem en wat moet er anders? Bert Keizer beschrijft dit boek als zijn inspiratie voor 'waar blijft de ziel' maar dit boek is wat dat betreft veel minder stellig - en minder duidelijk.
Misschien toch zn papers maar opzoeken...
maree_k's review against another edition
4.0
Noe raises some interesting points, but overall his arguments did not convince me - possibly because at the end of each chapter he would write something like,'so now I've explained this so clearly how can you disagree'.
A big issue for me is that he didn't clearly define consciousness. Also, he wrote a fair bit about vision but it didn't really seem to marry up with his contention. I'd like to take Sacks' The Mind's Eye and compare it with Noe's arguments and see what I can make of it.
An interesting book and in some ways his idea that consciousness is out of our bodies makes sense, especially if you look at neurological development from a neuroconstructivist perspective, but ultimately his arguments are, for me, unconvincing.
A big issue for me is that he didn't clearly define consciousness. Also, he wrote a fair bit about vision but it didn't really seem to marry up with his contention. I'd like to take Sacks' The Mind's Eye and compare it with Noe's arguments and see what I can make of it.
An interesting book and in some ways his idea that consciousness is out of our bodies makes sense, especially if you look at neurological development from a neuroconstructivist perspective, but ultimately his arguments are, for me, unconvincing.
More...