Rating: 
Summary: The Great Unification of the Body/Mind
Review: There's not much I can say. The book is perfectly in the line of sociobiology (that's why it is better to read, for example, "The Selfish Gene" before this one). But, to really understand Damasio's contructions of the human mind, one should read GEB (Godel, Escher, Bach) by D. R.Hofstadter. These three books combine in unsuspected ways to the compreension of the human Brain/Mind. D. C. Dennet remarked that Damasio's ideia is so simple that he wondered why he didn't think of it itself; remembers Huxley when he said of Darwin's Natural Selection "how stupid of me not to think about that!".
Rating:
Summary: A Thought Provoking Work
Review: This book brings together so many of the threads of Western thought in a way that is thought provoking and provides the reader with the tools required to actually rethink these complicated but important issues.Damasio brings to the lay reader who is willing to devote some energy to understanding recent developments in neurology and brain function some important tools to re-evaluate the issues of mind body dualism. (This is the error that Damasio believes that Descartes made, the separation of mind from body.) If you believe that science has no power to shed light on thorny philosophical questions, read this book. Damasio makes a compelling case that modern studies of the brain and brain damage clearly demonstrate that the "mind" depends on complex interaction between brain and body and that emotion and rationality cannot be separated, indeed can't exist separately This book is not an easy read, but it is compelling in its argument. I found myself wanting to tell people about Damasio's arguments and examples. This is that occassional book that has the power to make the reader see mankind's place in the world in a new light. Highly recommended!
Rating: 
Summary: good book.
Review: This book is about the central role emotion plays in cognition. Descartes error, dualism, is, well, an error. Few today fail to notice that. However, the other error, the separation made between reason and emotion, is today still lurking in the popular conception of the mind.(even in neuroscience one reads of terrible simplifications like "right hemisophere emotional, left rational" not strictly wrong, but misleading) GRanted, Descartes regarded emotion (qualitative aspects)in the same class of stuff as reason (res cogitas), but the problem is that it is the physiological aspect of emotions that is interesting, and indeed superceeds the qualitative aspects, as Damasio makes clear. So emotions play a role in all of cognition, including reason. Memories are made stronger and can be wiped out by emotion. Emotions affect attentive mechanisms. As Damasios much recent work implies, emotion might be essetnial to consciousness. Learning is modulated in strange ways by emotions. Emotions seem to know more than we do, sometimes. For example, Damasio tells us of prosopagnosics who cannot recognize faces, but who show viceral (sweating, pulse, etc..) reactions to faces that are familiar. But his main efforts are presenting evidence that reason itself uses emotions to guide its decision making process. Damasio focuses on neuropsychology. A patient with damage in frontal lobes (seat of reason, but more ventrally, also emotions i.e Phineas Gage)fails to catch on on changing conditions during an experiment that requires the subject to use reason and devise a strategy. It seems that emotion kind of alerts reason of valuable choices and things of the like. Emotion gives value to perception, cetegorizing the usefullness of stimuli, and apparently of different strategies. So you use as much emotion as reason while playing chess. (not that it is a necessary condition for play, look at a computer).this is Damasios somatic-marker hypothesis, the claim that emotions act as warning signals to possible negative outcomes, thus making desition making more efficient and accurate. As the neuropsychological patient shows, no somatic marker compromises reasoning ability. Damasio also introduces terms like images, and neural patterns. He explains neurobiologically emotions, feelings, among other things. At the end of the book he speculates on the relationship between emotions and things like the self and consicousness, considerations that would lead to his book "The Feeling of What Happens". If you read that, you should get this book too. Sanyone interested in neuroscience, psychology,copnsciousness, or even philosophy should read this. I would recomend also reading LeDouxs "Emotional Brain" to see another more detailed view of common issues.
Rating: 
Summary: Book "Yes"; Audio "No!"ΓΏ
Review: This is an obviously important book. The author has developed a solid, profound argument for the key role emotion plays in affecting reason. His examples are interesting and convincing. However, I urge the reader to forego the audio edition. It is presented in uninspiring, monotone speech that is really quite boring. If one is particularly motivated to learn this material (as I am), then the audio cassette may be a useful accompaniment to the text. For less motivated listeners, I urge you spend your money on something else, unless you need a sleep aid.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent read, but Damasio's Error...
Review: This is at terrific introduction to and arguement against Cartesian dualism. Damasio is a terrific writer and thinker. He presents his own ideas in a clear and compelling fashion. However, the big flaw of this book is that Damasio presents Descartes' Idea of "Cogito, Ergo Sum" with Damasio's interpretation of what Descarte meant. So, the book is unbalanced. We can hardly hold Descarte accountable for what Damasio has made of him and his ideas. And yet, that is exactly what Damasio does. Damasio "interprets" what Descarte meant and then proceeds in a reasonably logical and coherent way. The problem here is that the premise (the original interpretation of Descarte's idea) is wrong. Descarte did not mean what Damasio would have us believe he meant. Bascially, that "It is a fact that I think; facts exist; therefore I exist." On the contrary, there is no "It" at all in Descartes' thinking. But once you interpret Descartes to mean something other than what he meant, it becomes a very easy proposition for Damasio to make a case against him. . From my perspective, Damasio is missing the forest for the trees. While, he does have an interesting idea, and he is a excellent scientist, he lacks true objectivity. He decides what Descartes meant (thereby renedering himself a subjective interpreter of Descartes)and then in effect makes a case against what he thinks Descartes meant. In effect, Damasio makes a case against an idea that is the product of his own imagination. That said, Damasio's book is an excellent piece of accessible scholarship (as far it goes). But the best thing about the book was that it helped make my own thinking clearer about what it was that Descartes meant when he said "Cogito, Ergo Sum". And in the spirit of Descartes, "it isn't enough to have the courage of your convictions, you have to be able to have them challenged!" And for that reason, Damsio's book is truly worth the read !
Rating:
Summary: A correction of a 'correction'...
Review: This is NOT a review -- though I own the book in question, have only skimmed it so far, and venture to agree heartily with the glowing reviews I've read. I merely would like to respond to our friend, the reviewer from Canada, who was disturbed by what he/she thought was an 'error' in the author's SPELLING of his title. I certainly can't speak for all the rules of English spelling as taught or practiced in Canada, but, as a student of English in general, I can assure the troubled reviewer that "Descartes' Error" contains NO error in spelling. The reviewer is correct, of course, in stating that "Descartes" is not a plural noun; but the general rule for forming the possessive of any noun (including personal names) whose singular form ends in "s" is one which favors economy and simplicity: simply add an apostrophe (') to denote possession -- NOT an apostrophe AND another "s" -- as the title of this book correctly shows.
Rating:
Summary: The Error of Cartesian People
Review: To the "December 18, 2003" reviewer: "To write a book about Philosophy or related issues one MUST HAVE a degree in Philosophy, in the same way if somebody decides to write about Neurology he/she needs to have the proper qulifications to do so." That's the typical authoritarian speech of people who hide behind their jobs, their qualifications, their deegrees, etc. Not exactly the right quote, but it describes the context: "Holier Than Thou". Yes, recognition by the expert authorities is a key to being heard, but I ask: when were these high authorities the driving force within ANY thought revolution? Maybe because someone DOESN'T have a deegree on a particular subject, he can express views which aren't tainted by the "academia's" notion of what is correct and incorrect. Most of the radical developments in human thought came without the approval of the "status quo". Ironically, the "status quo" absorves the knowledge of such revolutions when they have been tamed down or when the revolutionaries themselves have become the "status quo". You, the reviewer, might even be right about Damasio... but you used a VERY lousy argument...
Rating:
Summary: Don't Read Damasio 'Less You're Interested in Cerebating
Review: What one thinks of Damasio's lovely work, _Descartes' Error_, will largely depend on how interested one is in matters pertaining to the human brain, consciousness and the self. Additionally, one who does not have much of an appetite for technical language will probably not get very fair in this work. Much of Damasio's study is also hypothetical in nature. Therefore, I would not recommend this work to those who have little to no tolerance for abstracta or theoria. But if you are intensely intrigued by the inner workings of the human brain, this book is for you. Damasio initiates his discussion with a fascinating story about Phineas Gage, a man who had a 3 1/2 foot iron rod pass through his head and lived to tell about it. Damasio moves from Gage to other patients who have experienced damage to their frontal lobes and reviews the effect it had on their lives. He argues that reason and emotions are both needed in order for sound judgment or prudence to obtain. Finally, Damasio challenges Cartesian dualism, which posits the anthropological notion of a RES EXTENSA and RES COGITANS. Damasio winds up contending that the "self" which has received so much theoretical attention throughout human history is no doubt neural in nature, unlike Descrates envisioned it. In short, there is no self without a functioning brain in a body. At least, not on this earth. The one drawback that I find with this book is that Damasio does not spend enough time critiquing Cartesian dualism. Nevertheless, the journey that terminates in an analysis of Cartesianism is well worth the ride. Moreover, the author offers an alternative to Descartes' theory that is both compelling and thought-provoking.
| 
