Rating: 
Summary: Discover lots of explanations...
Review:
Reading individual scientific works on brain/mind issues with the goal of gaining insight into how the mind works can be - well, mind numbing. I greatly appreciate John Horgan's journalistic, no-holds-bared approach to the subject. What does he discover? The field is wide ope, massively complex and contradictory. And he lets you know it in a fast paced conversational style.
I enjoyed this book very much. In particular I enjoyed the interviews with James Austin and Susan Blackmore. I respect the imposition of Mr. Horgan's personal views. This is a book by a journalist, not a peer review. I recommend it to everyone with a general interest in mind studies.
Rating: 
Summary: A little off the mark
Review: A large part of this book is an evaluation of the effectiveness of various approaches to "mind-science," including psychoanalysis, psychopharmacology, evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics, artificial intelligence, etc. Horgan interviews some of the main players and then evaluates their arguments. Understandably, the contrarian-minded author of The End of Science (1996), finds fault with all of them. What he doesn't do is set up any sort of pecking order of effectiveness among them. Thus the reader is left to conclude that those who advocate lobotomies and electroshock treatment, for example, are no further off base than those who advocate the use of Prozac or other SSRIs. Horgan actually suggests that all mind science approaches might be helpful (as in "All have won and all deserve prizes"-the "dodo hypothesis" from Alice in Wonderland that he seems to be making fun of in Chapter Three, but then adopts). He himself would try (for depression) "psychotherapy first, and the antidepressants. If they didn't work...I might give the shock therapy expert...a call."John, I recommend placebo therapy first. And whatever you do don't go near those electrodes without the signed approval of your wife and kids, your employer, your lawyer, your publisher, and a good father confessor. Call your grandmother. If they all agree it's okay, call me. Also, you might reread your own book which includes the inescapable conclusion that none of these therapies is much better than the mere passage of time, something known, by the way, as you report, for many decades. Another part of the book is about the issues in mind-science, especially the question of consciousness, an enigma Horgan doesn't expect to be solved anytime soon, if ever. I would like to say that the question of consciousness, like the question of God, is at first a problem of definition. The disputants are often talking about different things. To one, consciousness is akin to "awareness." To another it's something like "ego-identity." To a third it's something like "spiritual awareness." Just as the God of the Vedas, about which nothing can be said, is very different from the God of conservative Christianity, who has a bad temper and seeks to punish sinners, so too is the idea of consciousness as simply a degree of awareness a far cry from consciousness as self-identity. After the disputants agree on their definitions I would ask (and I think this is Horgan's feeling), how can an ant comprehend itself in its entirety? or Can a pillar of salt measure the ocean of Brahman? Horgan also considers the question of machine consciousness or the consciousness of artificial intelligence. Here one can easily see the functionality of solipsism. If I have any doubt about someone else being conscious (of course I have no doubt about myself--I think) how much easier it is to doubt that a machine may be conscious. If I can't ever prove that anyone other than myself is conscious (and I can't), how am I going to prove that a machine is? So I think Horgan's essential skepticism is largely justified. When, in some distant millennium, we finally do understand ourselves, we will no longer be what we are today. However, along the way, I think it should be noticed, for example, that evolutionary psychology has a much firmer scientific basis than say psychoanalysis. And it might be pointed out that one has to be pretty desperate to try "electro-convulsive therapy," which is what electroshock therapy is currently being called. That Horgan was able to describe the horrors of lobotomy and the currently popular surgical procedure, "cingulotomy" without once noting that such "treatments" are anything more than "controversial" (page 129) suggests a loss of perspective. On page 134 he allows that he is concerned "that drugs [Prozac, etc.], and to a lesser extent, shock therapy have been oversold." He adds that "the administration of psychiatric drugs to children has gotten out of hand." "Oversold"? "Out of hand"? Horgan doesn't say whether a cingulotomy, in which a "marble-sized bundle of nerves" that links the frontal lobe (instead of the whole frontal lobe) is severed, is an "out of hand" treatment or even whether he would, as a last resort, choose such a treatment for himself should the other three fail. On target however is the way he addresses the notion that physics is "the most fundamental--and thus most important--scientific research." (p 259) He calls on physicist Philip Anderson to point out that "Reality has a hierarchical structure...with each level independent, to some degree, of the levels above and below." Anderson adds, "At each stage, entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one." That the so-called soft sciences such as psychology are actually more complex than the so-called hard sciences is one of Horgan's implicit points, and one of the reasons he believes mind-science hasn't really accomplished much as yet, or indeed ever will. At bottom he believes that there is a clear limit to what we can comprehend. On this I agree. I just think that we still have quite a ways to go before we run out of ability. I think consciousness, for example, will eventually be seen as an illusion and a mechanism of evolution, a "trick," so to speak, that makes us so intently identify with our particular phenotype that we will do almost anything to keep it alive and well. How the mind works, how it apprehends and creates "reality," the details thereof, including the infamous "binding problem" may well be beyond the comprehension of any of us. However, together as a cultural entity in this world, with our electronic machines and other artifacts, we may as a species comprehend many things that we as individuals cannot.
Rating:
Summary: A good antidote to the hype
Review: At a time when we are constantly bombarded with claims and counter claims about the mind in the media and the popular press, it is good to see someone finally rise above the hype and take a good critical look at the current state of Mind Science. Opening with a discussion of the mind body problem or as Horgan calls it the "explanatory gap" and the difficulties in constructing a single theory of the mind, Horgan leaves the reader wondering if in the final analysis, such a thing is even possible. While ultra critical, Horgan does not make the same mistakes as he did in his first book. He treats each argument fairly and reasonably. As one reviewer pointed out "Where he is skeptical he is judging scientists by their own standard: the evidence" In my view he is at his strongest when critiquing Bio-Psychiatry and especially the pseudo- science Evolutionary Psychology, which he rightly points out its inability to perform experiments, and the impossibility of objectively determining what is a cultural or innate trait. He likens this budding "Science" to the now fading psychoanalysis, which has interesting views on human nature, but whose theories can never really be verified. Finally, he tackles the old philosophical problem of consciousness, and highlights all the competing contradictory views on how to tackle the problem. Of course ultimately we may solve the problems that Horgan thinks are beyond our grasp, but until then, Horgan's Critical rationalism will do just fine.
Rating: 
Summary: Wanders a Lot: Gets Nowhere!
Review: For me, a firm believer in science and its ability to know, there are still a few basic criterion for the rubric, "Science." I feel that neither psychology, evolutionary psychology, neuroscience nor cognitive science has met them. The problem is that it is so difficult to perform experiments on the mind. Also, even if we can know how the mind works (generally through introspection) and how the brain works (through extrospection), is there any reason to believe that we can fuse the two knowledges? Well, not really. I was hoping that this book would go through some of these quips but sadley, it misses them all. The only reason Horgan seems to be skeptical of the "mind sciences" is his recognition of the fact that a good, predictive and somewhat unifying theory is nowhere close to close. Unfortunately, I think Horgan has not looked at the history of science. Always, a Lamarck preceeds a Darwin, a lesser, more guessed at than concluded theory preceeds a solid and explanatory one. I wish Horgan would've brought up some other issues, but he is quite redundant in this one. Another thing I did not like about the book is that it seemed less about reflection than it did about trying to be an interview journalist. His style is enjoyable, to be sure, but not satisfying as the whole book consists of streams of interviews conducted with every type of "mind scientist" available. Very little reflecting, very little concluding, and no common link to tie these interviews together. Basically, it rambles. Instead, I would read Mcginn's "The Mysterious Flame," Nagel's "The View From Nowhere," and Penrose's "Emporer's New Mind." All three are much more in depth and discuss many more problems of "knowing the mind" than this one does.
Rating: 
Summary: Objectivity At Its Best
Review: For the first time, someone has managed to cut through the hype, the unfulfilled hopes, and the PR of the psychological community in order to offer a realistic look at the current state of the art as well as what can or can not be expected in the future.
Rating:
Summary: An interesting curative for scientific hubris
Review: Horgan does an excellent job of pointing out in specific terms how the complexities of the human mind have not yet been captured by our sciences, and leaves us wondering whether such a thing is even possible. The strength of this book is that Horgan was very careful about going to representative sources in each science, to show each in its best light rather than simply debunking them. This results in a very good review of basic neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, psychotherapy, psychopharmaceutical effectiveness, and other research areas of importance that claim to tell us something fundamental about ourselves. We don't get the sense in this book that Horgan is simply arbitrarily skeptical of science, but that he respects what science can accomplish yet finds some aspects of reality simply beyond our ken. Seemingly reasonable, yet easy to forget when we get caught up in the excitement over the stream of promising new findings from research. The weakness of this book is that he doesn't give any indication at all that any view of the mind is better or more useful than any other, something of profound importance when we try to make decisions on what is known, such as deciding what to do when feeling overwhelmed and unsure of our sanity. The reader might be left at the end of the book in frustration with the conclusion that we don't really know _anything_ at all about the mind and brain, which wouldn't be true, even according to the contents of Horgan's books. It does however deserve a place on the bookshelf of anyone who suspects that we don't know everything yet, and who wants to better understand where the limits of our knowledge of the mind are now. It will probably attract many skeptics of science, but its real value is to remind scientists of our own limitations and the depth of the mysteries of nature.
Rating:
Summary: The best book I've read on the brain
Review: Horgan leaves you open-mouthed at the breadth and depth of his reporting. From Prozac to psychoanalysis to PET scans, he puts all of mind science in place; and does it so deftly and entertainingly that you don't realize till later how much you have learned. He has made fewer waves with this book than with The End of Science, but if anything this one's even better. He is not the bad boy of science journalism (as he's been called lately) so much as the smart man --capable of handling any subject with grace, wit, and honesty, and appropriate levels of skepticism. Where he is skeptical he is judging scientists by their own standard: the evidence. My favorite chapter was his deconstruction of evolutionary psychology. I found myself less pessimistic than Horgan about the potential of neuroscience, but it didn't affect my enjoyment of the book. He writes with a point of view, which makes him interesting, but he doesn't abuse you with it.
Rating:
Summary: An entertaining read
Review: Horgan takes the reader on a journalistic tour of mind science.
With wit and depth of reporting he shows just how far off we are from understanding the mind.
Rating:
Summary: Lost in itself !!!
Review: John Morgan has lost himself in such skeptical toughts... In summary, he does not believe in sience, in knowledge, in knowning patterns, in medicine, in neurology, in anything... It adds very little, instead of bad mood. Don't waste your money!
Rating:
Summary: Advice
Review: Mainly Horgan critics Neorological Science, a new field for brain studies that gained attention in 90's. (IT'S NOT ABOUT BRAIN - if you want to know about mind and brain, take another book - read this one if you already have some knowledge about Neuroscience,cos this book doesn't explain - it critics the latest discoveries but doesn't explain them - mainly because Horgan believes they offer nothing.). You must have previous information about theories (like Darvin, Evolutional Psychology, Cognitive Neurosciece, Freud and others...) to understand this book. Also, please have in mind this is a CRITIC book, not a book that will reveal new things for you. It helps to understand the overall theories (together, which it's exacly what mind science doesn't have: union). In fact, the books keep telling we don't know nothing about mind. My three stars go to his effort to destroy some obsolete and new theories that claims to have all answers when they don't. Even though he doesn't have the answer himself, he destroys the fake ones, which is exacly what science progress is about.
|
