Rating: 
Summary: Deescarte's Error
Review: Damasio has a fascinating style. I have quite an adequate background in neuropsychology and was able to follow Damasio's explantions of neural circuitry. However, I believe that a person without such a background, but with a keen interest in the subject, would still appreciate Descarte's Error.This book brings humanity to the structure and function of man's brain and the impact of this mysterious and fascinating organ on the individual and society. Many will concentrate on the author's attack on the mind/body dualism. Yes, he does a splendid job of this. But what was fascinating to this reader were the case histories he uses to gain the reader's attention and interest. I have read about Phinneas Cage in almost every psychology text I've read, but never had an indepth look at this man(Cage) and the impact of his impairment on our understanding of how the brain works. The other case histories are just as fascinating and effectively illustrate their contributions to the field of neuroscience.
Rating: 
Summary: This book is a terrible polemic
Review: Damasio's book received much attention in the philosophy of emotions literature, however, in my view, the argument presented in the book is very weak. The author presents himself as th "sensible scientist" and defends a biological theory of emotions "the somatic-marker hypothesis." Where the book is novel, it relies on speculative scientific theories (primarily from neuro-science), where the book is correct it is trivial. The worst part of the book is the final chapter, where Damasio engages in a polemic against what he calls "Descartes' Error." The view that he attacks is mind-body dualism, a view which is presented very uncharitably (it is questionable whether Descartes' would even fully endorse the view that Damasio presents) and in way that no reasonable person would adopt it. Overall, the book is philosophically and scientifically weak. It gains its force with ad hominem arguments and fanciful story telling. The book might be useful for a lower-level undergraduate university course or for fun reading, however, it is, in my view, inappropriate for an upper-level undergraduate or graduate course. For the latter, there are much better philosophical books available, e.g., by Panksepp, Griffiths, Nussbaum.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent
Review: Damasio's book will be somewhat tough sledding for the non-specialist, but it's still a good book and worth sticking with to the end. Using Descartes's famous dictum as a departure point, and through a discussion of current theory and detailed case studies, he demonstrates the intimate relationship between the brain, mind, and body. The case studies of sensory agnosia were very interesting, especially the one where the patient had apparently lost the functioning of the part of his brain that stored the awareness of one side of the patient's body, to the point where the patient had no awareness or perception of that half at all, and even denied that he even had a problem with it. There can be no clearer demonstration of the fact that our consciousness and awareness depends entirely on that 3-pound, convoluted mass of nerve cells we call the brain.
As someone with a pretty fair background in the area myself (I did a master's and almost completed a Ph.D. in psychobiology) I can vouch for Damasio's command of the scientific and technical issues and details (notwithstanding that fact that Damasio is both an M.D. and a Ph.D.) so he has a good command of the medical issues also. The book is very well written, although not easy, but Damasio does a fine job of explaining the more difficult ideas. One further comment, I read one review that was critical of Damasio for supposedly misinterpreting Descartes's dictum, "I think, therefore I am," and then spent the whole review discussing Descartes instead of Damasio's book. The reviewer also stated that because of this Damasio lacks scientific objectivity. Since his comment is itself a good starting point for discussing the most important aspect of Damasio's book, I thought I'd write a little more on it here. Whether or not Damasio's interpretation of Descartes dictum is wrong or not, (and from the other reviewer's disjointed discussion, that itself isn't very clear), this is a minor detail, since Damasio simply uses this as a point of departure and from there on the vast majority of the book is devoted to a discussion of the neurological and brain issues, not to the technical details of the philosophy of mind-body dualism, for which there are already plenty of other discussions out there (having read many of them myself). However one should precisely interpret Descartes's famous statement, Damasio is completely correct in pointing out the most important aspect of Descartes's idea--that the mind is fundamentally different from the brain itself and that one needs a dualistic theory to explain the separation of the apparently immaterial mind from the more material body--is wrong. Although echoes of this theory can still be seen in modern philosophy, and were an important influence on idealist philosophers that followed Descartes, such as Kant, and even continue to have an influence on modern neo-Kantian theory and other thinkers, the advance of modern neurobiology has shown that these theories are fundamentally wrong. Since we're on the subject--and to be completely fair--I will that say that one aspect of Kant's theory is quite accurate--that the mind is actively involved in organizing the data of the senses--and that ideas about the external world could not exist unless there were corresponding mental capabilities and constucts to match. Our understanding of sensory information processing and of advanced cortical abilities certainly show that the brain has evolved in a way that reflects the need for specific capabilities to enhance our survival in a dangerous world. Kant's idea that there are inborn mental faculties that allow us to form ideas about the external world isn't so different from this idea, and in that sense, Kant was right. (This would have been a good point for the other reviewer to make, but he got lost in the trivial details, and failed to see "the forest for the trees" (as he himself incorrectly said of Damasio)). Anyway, returning to Damasio's book, this is well-written book on a fascinating aspect of modern neurobiology, and which has profound implications for western philosophies of idealism and dualism. Although not an easy book for the non-specialist, it's worth the effort. I have one final suggestion to make, and that is you might want to read Michael Gazzaniga's more general introduction to neurobiology: "Nature's Mind: The Biological Roots of Thinking, Emotions, Sexuality, Language, and Intelligence," before tackling this one. It's also an excellent book and you'll have a more well-rounded understanding of the brain field which should stand you in good stead to tackle this book, or any other brain-oriented books, after reading it.
Rating:
Summary: Uno capolavoro! Bravo!
Review: Damasio's Descartes' Error is a most excellent text for college students. I have assigned this text in my philosophy class and have received 100% positive feedback from students. The writing of Damasio is superb, since the book lacks contractions, speaks to a "wise imaginary friend who knew little about neuroscience" (p. xviii), and provides strong evidence for his "somatic-marker hypothesis."
Rating:
Summary: Groundbreaking Contributions in Readable Form
Review: Damasio's physiological analysis of emotion, reason, and consciousness contributes groundbreaking knowledge to the study of being and self, (as the Philadelphia Inquirer puts it) "tap-dancing on the edge between philosophy and science." Damasio's contributions have been recognized and taught as the foremost understanding of the subject in the field by such psychology textbooks as Biological Psychology (7th edition) by James Kalat, one of the most commonly utilized sources for teaching physiological psychology in academia. Damasio studies the case of Phineas Gage among other knowledge in the field to assemble neurochemical explanations for brain-body interactions, as well as presenting a thorough study of "the neural underpinnings of reason," challenging "the traditional views on the nature of rationality" (p. xi). A stunning work!
Rating:
Summary: Describes the workings of the mind.
Review: Descartes' Error explains the workings of the brain in biological terms. The components of the brain, how they function, and how they effect the entire human body are discussed. The author uses specific examples of brain injuries and diseases to help us understand the complexity of its operation. How we feel, learn, and make decisions is discussed. Damasio brings together the past theories of the brain and the most recent knowledge of how it functions.
Rating:
Summary: A reader from Saint Louis
Review: Descartes' Error is a masterpiece work, summary of many years of intense research in one of the most challenging areas of the science: human behavior. Highly recommended for people who are interested in pursuing further insights in the brain functioning mechanisms. Written in a readily accessible language for non-experts in the area. Satisfaction guaranteed.
Rating:
Summary: Moves discussion from pure philosophy to scientific
Review: Ever since the Renaissance roughly two different camps have existed. One (still the predominant paradigm today) is the rationalistic school represented by Descartes et al., the other represented by Hume, Rousseau et al. The latter group postulated a great many things about how emotions and feelings were important, but no proof could be produced at the time. With Antonio Damasio's book, however, we finally have the proof we have waited 400 years for! Emotions are indeed important, and the body and mind are not seperate entities but rather a united whole. This is not just a philosophical matter now, but a scientific theory corroborated by clinical evidence. Damasio even describes accurately just how these emotions and feelings influence and guide us. More importantly Damasio integrates his research into real life and shows how his findings are important as "developmental" cases of his physically brain damaged patients seem to exist. Daniel Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence" (psychology) is the popular account of these findings, and John Fowles' "The Collector" (fiction) is the scary vision of this pathology where intentions are backed with the right means ("The Magus" by John Fowles is also a relevant book in this regard).
Rating:
Summary: A review of the reviewers
Review: Except for a couple of the customer reviews i found the rest of them to be written by a collection of half-wit philosopher would be's.I would truly like to know if one of these people honestly knows anything about the human brain.The truth is that no one really does.Philosophy,since the beginning has been nothing more than a trail of babbling nonsense that only people with not too much of a life find themselves engulfed in.
Rating: 
Summary: the body minded brain
Review: Have you ever left the massage table with a clear head and lots of energy? Damasio thinks he knows why. His idea is that the mind cannot be conceived without some sort of embodiment (hence Descartes' Error). There is no Self which gives rise to a unified Mind; instead there are just so many synchronized systems of the body (the visceral, musculo-skeletal etc.) whose combined output results in a background "feeling". It is that feeling which represents the self ; self can therefore also be defined as a continuous experience of the body. During massage we relax the mind by relaxing the body . According to Damasio, each movement (of the limbs or bowels) results in a specific "feeling" loaded into our subconsciousness. These feelings and associated emotions are at the very core of cognition. Indeed, this book is intended to prove to the lay public Damasio's belief that he has experimentally deconstructed the wittgensteinian/russelian illusion (which claims that formal logic will get us to the best available solution for any problem). On the contrary, D. found that certain patients whose emotional centers are disabled by stroke but whose logical abilities remain intact become functional invalides: they cannot decide and when they do, they tend to make wrong decisions (they cannot use their "gut feelings" and therefore end duped or easily misled). The integration of emotions and reasoning is orchestrated by the prefrontal cortex and a large part of the book is devoted to explaining the specific neural circuits dedicated to this task. In my opinion, D. has not been able to prove Descartes was wrong. It is obvious that our minds depend on (internal and external) sensory input to generate "representations" which ultimately result in "decision-making"; however, Plato would say that an absence of a functional brain region does not necesarily disprove the existence of the Self - it merely prevents that Self from expressing itself. The book has interesting and important things to say. I think, however, that it will be of limited use to an average reader. I often found it to be unnecessarily technical; moreover, unlike, say, Ramachandran's book, which is a veritable explosion of provoking ideas and speculations, Desartes' Error is basically about one single idea... as a result, the same thing is repeated over and over again and i had to clench my canines to maintain interest. It would definitely benefit from good editing.
|
