A review by o88
Zen and the Art of Consciousness by Susan Blackmore
3.0
This book is ultimately a subjective exploration of her own experience as she dispels notions of a persistent self, free will, time, stream of experience, etc. Akin to Buddhist philosophy, everything is transient in nature and that we don't possess a unified unchanging self at the centre of our experience . She and many others believe that our experience is a product of complex interactions occurring between the brain and the rest of the world. I don’t agree with everything she has to say, but I appreciate her effort to bridge Zen and the philosophy of mind together using current science. However, she deviates from Zen practice by trying to think her way to the truth, or 'ultimate reality', but her logic is that if she asks the right questions it can be enlightening a la zen koans--and she may actually be right.
I think the main takeaway here is that she thinks that consciousness studies have gone in the wrong direction. She echoes others and says that it is a hard problem (how matter can generate a mental experience), perhaps even insoluble, and that we should be investigating how the illusion of dualism is created instead. She believes that instead of looking for neural correlates of consciousness we should be trying to understand how and why the brain pulls off the various tricks and illusions that involves our perceptions, thoughts, sensations, volitions, etc. Also, she believes discussion on consciousness has been complicated with descriptions of the mind that are problematic i.e. ‘contents of consciousness’/theatre of mind, a 'container' for consciousness, in/out of consciousness, etc
With that said, nothing is mentioned here that helped me understand consciousness better, as nothing significant is presented here that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere, so it was a great exercise, for her, but as a reader I feel unfulfilled--however that's not her fault as we simply need to know a lot more.
3/5
I think the main takeaway here is that she thinks that consciousness studies have gone in the wrong direction. She echoes others and says that it is a hard problem (how matter can generate a mental experience), perhaps even insoluble, and that we should be investigating how the illusion of dualism is created instead. She believes that instead of looking for neural correlates of consciousness we should be trying to understand how and why the brain pulls off the various tricks and illusions that involves our perceptions, thoughts, sensations, volitions, etc. Also, she believes discussion on consciousness has been complicated with descriptions of the mind that are problematic i.e. ‘contents of consciousness’/theatre of mind, a 'container' for consciousness, in/out of consciousness, etc
With that said, nothing is mentioned here that helped me understand consciousness better, as nothing significant is presented here that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere, so it was a great exercise, for her, but as a reader I feel unfulfilled--however that's not her fault as we simply need to know a lot more.
3/5