Scan barcode
toc's review against another edition
4.0
Man, can that Susan Blackmore write or what? Excellent introduction to the topic. Short it may be but thorough. I now feel ready to tackle some bigger book on the topic. Perhaps one written by Susan Blackmore herself!
rish4bh's review against another edition
4.0
The Book and Me
The book deals with a very hard problem, which Blackmore puts forward in the very first line of the very first chapter: What is consciousness? A question you might have ruminated in past, in some way, at some point in time, but then you let it go in favor of attending to worldly obligations. My version goes like this:
Seventh grade, Biology class
Me and my friend were giving a re-read to our favorite chapter ;-) when these words fell upon my ears.
Teacher : a cell is the smallest unit of life… millions… single cell organisms… blah, blah…
Me: You mean we are filled with living beings! Do they know they are inside me?
Teacher : No. They don’t have consciousness.
Me: How can you be sure?
Teacher: Let’s drop this, it is getting absurd.
It was getting interesting. I never got an answer, as I said, it is a hard problem. It becomes even harder when you ask - Do we have consciousness? Susan Blackmore believes we don’t and declares it openly in the book, which may put off some readers, but there plenty of theories in here to keep you from falling to one side of the debate. Being a fan of Sam Harris and thus a non-believer in free-will I was much inclined to reject the idea of consciousness, but as pages increased on the left, I was gradually pushed to the center and by the end I didn’t know what to believe.
Recommendation
Recommended for people who are:
1. Cognizant of the debate, but haven’t read much; this might be a good start.
2. Convinced of existence/non-existence of consciousness after hearing one side.
3. Looking for fascinating experiments, stories, and psychological conditions( google “Hemispatial Neglect”)
If they had read it
Spider-man and Sandman
SP: Why did you kill my uncle?
SD: I had to, I didn’t have any choice.
SP: You always have a choice.
SD: But I just read that consciousness is an illusion and so is free-will. A guy named Benjamin Libet proved this by some experiment.
SP: Oh that’s only half of it, Libet’s experiment proves that we don’t have free-will but do have “free-won’t”, ha! Now take this punch and tell me if you feel conscious.
The book deals with a very hard problem, which Blackmore puts forward in the very first line of the very first chapter: What is consciousness? A question you might have ruminated in past, in some way, at some point in time, but then you let it go in favor of attending to worldly obligations. My version goes like this:
Seventh grade, Biology class
Me and my friend were giving a re-read to our favorite chapter ;-) when these words fell upon my ears.
Teacher : a cell is the smallest unit of life… millions… single cell organisms… blah, blah…
Me: You mean we are filled with living beings! Do they know they are inside me?
Teacher : No. They don’t have consciousness.
Me: How can you be sure?
Teacher: Let’s drop this, it is getting absurd.
It was getting interesting. I never got an answer, as I said, it is a hard problem. It becomes even harder when you ask - Do we have consciousness? Susan Blackmore believes we don’t and declares it openly in the book, which may put off some readers, but there plenty of theories in here to keep you from falling to one side of the debate. Being a fan of Sam Harris and thus a non-believer in free-will I was much inclined to reject the idea of consciousness, but as pages increased on the left, I was gradually pushed to the center and by the end I didn’t know what to believe.
Recommendation
Recommended for people who are:
1. Cognizant of the debate, but haven’t read much; this might be a good start.
2. Convinced of existence/non-existence of consciousness after hearing one side.
3. Looking for fascinating experiments, stories, and psychological conditions( google “Hemispatial Neglect”)
If they had read it
Spider-man and Sandman
SP: Why did you kill my uncle?
SD: I had to, I didn’t have any choice.
SP: You always have a choice.
SD: But I just read that consciousness is an illusion and so is free-will. A guy named Benjamin Libet proved this by some experiment.
SP: Oh that’s only half of it, Libet’s experiment proves that we don’t have free-will but do have “free-won’t”, ha! Now take this punch and tell me if you feel conscious.
josh_96's review against another edition
4.0
A deeply thought-provoking short book on the idea of consciousness. Curious, interesting, problematic and contradictory. There are more ways to think about this than one would expect, which is strange to say given that a book about the human conscious is obviously going to be deeply layered. It is almost frustrating to think about because it is so endless. You find yourself chasing your tail and turning your thoughts and observations inward, chasing an endless hole with no answer in sight. It's like dividing 10 by 3 and chasing an absolute answer.
So, the question we are presented with is as follows, is consciousness the result of evolutionary intelligence and self-awareness? The result of multiple brain areas working simultaneously and interpreting sensory information given to us by the external world? OR is it something deeper, something different and more mystical than the workings of our physical brain?
If it is the former, then consciousness is an illusion and we are deluded. Which is a possibility, but the illusion seems so incredibly real and compelling. So compelling in fact, that it can be argued that the illusion itself creates consciousness because of how fascinating and magical it is. Thus begins the never ending thought spiral.
If it is the latter, then we acknowledge that consciousness exists outside of our physical reality. In what dimension does consciousness exist? And how do we even come up with an answer for that question? We probably never will. It feels like our thoughts and feelings are more than just atoms and particles bumping together. Human emotions seem far too complex to have been brought about by physical matter.
The book is a short overview of theories, ideas, and opinions of philosophers and scientists. The duality of frustration and delight in having more questions than answers leaves me to think the philosophy and meaning of life is curiosity. Anything else will drive me to insanity.
So, the question we are presented with is as follows, is consciousness the result of evolutionary intelligence and self-awareness? The result of multiple brain areas working simultaneously and interpreting sensory information given to us by the external world? OR is it something deeper, something different and more mystical than the workings of our physical brain?
If it is the former, then consciousness is an illusion and we are deluded. Which is a possibility, but the illusion seems so incredibly real and compelling. So compelling in fact, that it can be argued that the illusion itself creates consciousness because of how fascinating and magical it is. Thus begins the never ending thought spiral.
If it is the latter, then we acknowledge that consciousness exists outside of our physical reality. In what dimension does consciousness exist? And how do we even come up with an answer for that question? We probably never will. It feels like our thoughts and feelings are more than just atoms and particles bumping together. Human emotions seem far too complex to have been brought about by physical matter.
The book is a short overview of theories, ideas, and opinions of philosophers and scientists. The duality of frustration and delight in having more questions than answers leaves me to think the philosophy and meaning of life is curiosity. Anything else will drive me to insanity.
outcolder's review against another edition
4.0
If Blackmore were a jazz trumpeter, she'd be blowin' right up Dennett's butt. Still, considering she is far less obnoxious than he is and that this is one of those slim "very short introductions," it's a much easier task than his [b:Consciousness Explained|2069|Consciousness Explained|Daniel C. Dennett|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1386924714s/2069.jpg|1860288]. I appreciate that Blackmore is clearly experienced in the Jimi Hendrix sense of the word but I question whether the conclusion that 'consciousness is a delusion' really should automatically lead to the conclusion that we should try to accept that and live accordingly. I suspect that the illusion of consciousness has some very important survival functions. Maybe the conclusion ought to be that I should do more to strengthen the illusion that I am the same person I was a minute ago ... for example, keep a diary ... and not do what Blackmore seems to insist is the correct thing, namely, meditate my mind away. This book was a fun ride, and I like thinking that one day self-aware computers might conclude that consciousness is a delusion even though we humans are perfectly prepared to attribute feelings and consciousness to everything from dirt to sock puppets.
yates9's review against another edition
4.0
Generally a very good introduction, slightly disappointed in the fragmentary content at the end of the book about abnormal states if consciousness.
anne_sophie's review against another edition
4.5
VSI Reality x VSI Animal Behaviour (but more accessible)
radbear76's review against another edition
5.0
It's been awhile since I read about consciousness and/or neurology. This book did a great job of refreshing my memory on the topic and reminding me of just how trippy consciousness is.
egerbosch_dobgirl99's review against another edition
informative
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
3.75
sbenzell's review against another edition
3.0
I enjoyed this refresher on some basic 'philosophy of mind' material. Obviously not everything can be covered in such a short book, but I wish more time had been spent on embodiment, idealism, and pansychism -- the last in particular.
The book is spicy in that the author takes a view from the beginning she defines as "delusionism" the idea that consciousness (or at least what we normally think of as consciousness) is a delusion. Now, to me, calling consciousness itself an illusion or delusion is question begging (what is the agent who is misled?) but I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that the lay-conception of individual identity is seriously flawed (Parfait perhaps makes the best version of this argument). I don't find particularly persuasive evidence from meditation about this: why should I be surprised (or should it be an argument against traditional theories of mind) that if I --use my conscious will -- to egnage in meditative practice over and over again that I can have a different sort of conscious experience?
Overall I do like the fact that the author takes a stand, but I found the last chapter, which I hoped would provide a full explanation, highly unsatisfying. It concludes that 'of course' -- experiences -- exist, but says consciousness does not. Waaa? I wish the author had more time to explain how she squares this circle, because right now it just seems like she's shifting the hard problem one concept over (from 'consciousness' to 'experience').
The book is spicy in that the author takes a view from the beginning she defines as "delusionism" the idea that consciousness (or at least what we normally think of as consciousness) is a delusion. Now, to me, calling consciousness itself an illusion or delusion is question begging (what is the agent who is misled?) but I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that the lay-conception of individual identity is seriously flawed (Parfait perhaps makes the best version of this argument). I don't find particularly persuasive evidence from meditation about this: why should I be surprised (or should it be an argument against traditional theories of mind) that if I --use my conscious will -- to egnage in meditative practice over and over again that I can have a different sort of conscious experience?
Overall I do like the fact that the author takes a stand, but I found the last chapter, which I hoped would provide a full explanation, highly unsatisfying. It concludes that 'of course' -- experiences -- exist, but says consciousness does not. Waaa? I wish the author had more time to explain how she squares this circle, because right now it just seems like she's shifting the hard problem one concept over (from 'consciousness' to 'experience').