The Mind's Past

Rating:
Summary: good.
Review: Gazzaniga argues succesfully that the brain, and therefore the mind, is a product of evolution and to an extent genetic determinism. His descriptions of the developing brain are compelling. The book is overall a review, from Gazzanigas point of view, of cognitive neurosciences. Few other people could be better qualified. Gazzaniga is the editor of the New Cognitive Neurosciences, arguably the best and most complete collection on the subject. Insight after insight follow from his quick and witty prose. This is an informative and easy book, that anyone interested in neuroscience should enjoy. Maybe some things could have been given much more space, but Gazzaniga sticks with what he knows best, like, for example, split-brain patients.

If I would have a complaint it would be on his poor treatment of consciousness. The study of consciousness is probably the most promising and difficult, and some would say the only true mystery left in the neurosciences. Gazzaniga presents a left-hemisphere interpreter theory, but as far as I can see, that is a theory of reportability and organization of conscious experience, not consciousness itself. It seems that what compells Gazzaniga in this point is the fact that language is, generally, a left hemispher function, and a presuposition that language is essential for consciousness. This is far from being established, and in fact, I believe evidence points to the possiblity of consciousness without language. Consider a monkey that has working memory, adequate behavior, self recognition in a mirror, and who some use to study binocular rivalry. Even much more critically, consider an aphasic or a deaf-mute.

Rating:
Summary: Somnolence in a book!
Review: I had expected to have more of an evolutionary discussion of the brain and the mind than this book produced. To the extent that it hardly lived up to its title, The Mind's Past (by Robert M. Sapolsky,) I was greatly disappointed. Little effort is made to even suggest the evolutionary history of the brain or mind, a topic that would probably have had to be mostly guesswork anyway. The author's style is stultifying; I literally fell asleep several times, trying to plow through it, and it's only 170 pages of information that is not difficult in itself. Much of the material on the scientific study of consciousness, the mind, and the brain are, however, better dealt with in other sources. Something just over 170 pages is simply not enough to really inform the reader. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul by Francis Crick, although painfully detailed and very slow reading, will certainly bring a person up to speed on the topic of brain and mind science (though not the soul), as would The Emotional Brain by Joseph Ledoux. Take warning, though, neither of these books is a quick read. A more general and more thoroughly readable book is Mapping the Mind by Rita Carter. For a good general book on the mind and emotions and the way they effect the body try Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers by Robert M. Sapolsky, a thoroughly fun book.

Rating:
Summary: Somnolence in a book!
Review: I had expected to have more of an evolutionary discussion of the brain and the mind than this book produced. To the extent that it hardly lived up to its title, The Mind's Past (by Robert M. Sapolsky,) I was greatly disappointed. Little effort is made to even suggest the evolutionary history of the brain or mind, a topic that would probably have had to be mostly guesswork anyway. The author's style is stultifying; I literally fell asleep several times, trying to plow through it, and it's only 170 pages of information that is not difficult in itself. Much of the material on the scientific study of consciousness, the mind, and the brain are, however, better dealt with in other sources. Something just over 170 pages is simply not enough to really inform the reader. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul by Francis Crick, although painfully detailed and very slow reading, will certainly bring a person up to speed on the topic of brain and mind science (though not the soul), as would The Emotional Brain by Joseph Ledoux. Take warning, though, neither of these books is a quick read. A more general and more thoroughly readable book is Mapping the Mind by Rita Carter. For a good general book on the mind and emotions and the way they effect the body try Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers by Robert M. Sapolsky, a thoroughly fun book.

Rating:
Summary: Provocative but Frustrating
Review: In this accessible and interesting book, Gazzaniga offers persuasive evidence to support his premise that the brain makes choices and begins to act before we are consciously aware of the fact. He suggests that an "interpreter" in the brain's left hemisphere constructs a coherent narrative of consciousness after the fact, which provides us with an illusion of free will. However, the evidence for the existence of this interpreter is strictly (if powerfully) circumstantial, and Gazzaniga never offers details as to where specifically he thinks the interpreter is located, how it would have evolved, and how specifically it functions. I also felt that his condescending attitude toward those who disagree with him kept him from seeing their evidence, and interfered with the effectiveness of his own argument.

Rating:
Summary: The Moral of this Story? Function Follows Form.
Review: The first half of this book is a very good story about how mammalian brains function. Mercifully, it's not a drawn out document on neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, but rather a description how the emergent forms of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology function; about how the brain works. In this respect it's a fascinating and informative essay written for the lay reader by a very eminent neurologist. Gazzaniga's ease of translating the dessicated lexicon of neurology into a cozy fireside tale is certainly a testement to his literary skill over and above his medical acumen.

The second half of the book trails off into monotonous case studies and lacks the zing of the opening chapters. I rated this book a five however because it carries such a seminal point that in itself is of astounding significance. The human brain is no where near as plastic as it's given credit for being in the popular literature. We all know what a brain looks like. Just thinking of the word brings to mind a fixed image we've all seen in myriads of represnetations. They all sort of look the same, and guess what, they all sort of function the same way too: function follows form, or, as Sartre said, the essence is revealed in the appearance, not concealed by it. This is not to say that the brain functions how it looks, but an analogy illustrating that a brain's function is based on its form, or, its anatomy and physiology. You'd think this would be obvious but apparently for some reason it isn't. It's is an important point and Gazzaniga breaks it down very plainly and simply. The idea that neural function follows form is not immediately apparent to the lay person because it is a very politically unpopular view. Not a neurologically unpopular view but a politically unpopular view. Think about it. Contemporary social policy strongly prefers a view that the brain is molded by environment so it can sell policies to solve problems. The brain, long evolved over eons has its own agenda however. Any pediatric neurologist can tell you, tragically, how the brain tolerates very little variation in local structure and chemistry; kids born with slight variations in brain anatomy and chemistry are subject to acute difficulties. We're all really very much more similar in terms of how our brains function than we generally allow for. The brain is, to be blunt, a product of genetics, "those pesky little robots of nature" as Gazzaniga calls them. Obviously, as E. O. Wilson learned, the world is not yet ready for sociobiology. Gazzaniga ignores such political correctness and proceeds to discuss how the brain actually functions, not how some may wish it to. Gazzaniga would have us consider behavior based on neural function as an endocrinologist would consider diabetes relative to pancreatic function; by material cause and effect. Can you imagine the chaos such a view would cause in a cultural system based on the idea of free will from the Protestant aesthetic of John Winthrop? More, it seems, of people's behavior is based on their brain structure and chemistry than on environmental factors, an idea clearly counter to popular beliefs.

Gazzaniga also takes great pleasure in pointing out that we unconsciously lie a lot and concoct in voluminous quantities. This is how our brains are evolved to function, that is, to lie and create fantastic realities; and to great adaptive success one might add. This idea is not necessarily new for sophisticated idealists, although it is still not palatable to uprightly moral types because they tell the truth (really they do). We make the world we observe to a very large extent in our materially imaginative minds and Gazzaniga elucidates such a fantastic notion in a straight forward discussion that raises as many questions as it answers.

All in all a short, sweet, easy read on how brains function by a highly qualified observer.

Rating:
Summary: Astounding!
Review: This book is, of course, an attempt to provide for the layman a comprehensive, comprehensible summary of the current state of cognitive neuroscience, not an easy task. Gazzaniga has the credentials to do this, being Director of Cognitive Neuroscience at Dartmouth and the author of several authoritative texts on the subject.

The suprise is that he has the capacity to make this palatable for the lay reader. I found his discription of the methodology and the current findings absolutely astounding. To read the clever experiments that pry open the functions of the brain is awe inspiring. The reader can only marvel at the complexity of human mental function, but with an inkling that we have the power to unravel its mysteries.

This book clearly demonstrates the progress that we are making in this area. Moreover the study of abnormal brain function is eye-opening in its implications for our understanding of normal brain activity.

Well worth reading!

Rating:
Summary: MY INTERPRETER WROTE THIS
Review: This book takes a look at long held assumptions about human consciousness, and examines them in the light of modern empirical neuroscience. It examines the processes of perception and the work of the left brain's "interpreter." It's an uncommon look at "common sense."

The first chapter of the book examines the "Fictional Self," and continues to weave this thread of thought throughout the book. What fascinated me most about this line of thought was that it paralleled ancient Eastern thought about the illusion of individual reality. However, Dr. Gazzaniga's book does not draw on these ancient traditions, and it is up to the reader to figure them out.

Dr. Gazzaniga writes, "... the primate brain prepares cells for decisive action long before we are even thinking about making a decision! These automatic processes sometimes get tricked and create illusions - blatant demonstrations of these automatic devices that operate so efficiently that no one can do anything to stop them. They run their course and we see them in action; as a consequence we have to conclude that they are a big part of us." p. 20

In The Bhagavad-Gita it says, " As the ignorant act with attachment to actions, Arjuna, so wise men should act with detachment to preserve the world." (3rd Teaching, 25, translated by Barbara Stoler Miller) Just like "The Mind's Past," The Bhagavad-Gita points out the illusion of willful action. Dr. Gazzaniga's empirical observations have a poetic parallel in The Bhagavad-Gita.

The book also examines the dual functions of perception, the flow of perceptual information to the parietal and temporal lobes simultaneously, one prepares the body to act within reality, and the other constructs an illusionary perception of reality. This was also noted by physicist Richard Feynman in his lecture on space/time, commenting on our inability to perceive space/time as it really is; which is also a fundamental concept found in Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism.

On page 157, Dr. Gazzaniga reports on an experiment in which humans, using the left brain "interpreter," chose the right response 68% of the time, while none-interpreting animals get it right 80% of the time. "While it quickly becomes evident that the top button is being illuminated more often, subjects keep trying to figure out the whole sequence and deeply believe they can. Yet by adopting this strategy, they are rewarded only about 68 percent of the time. If they always press the top button, they are rewarded 80 percent of the time. Rats and other animals are more likely to learn to maximize and press only the top button. It turns out that our right hemisphere behaves like a rat's. It does not try to interpret its experience and find deeper meaning. It continues to live only in the thin moment of the present." This right brain strategy is Taoism at its essence.

This book is an interesting read, and highly recommended to anyone who is a student of perception. It will challenge the egocentric view of reality, and will provide an unwelcome jolt to a belief-system of egocentric reality, but it does so with humor and scientific insight.

Rating:
Summary: Is there a "self" in there?
Review: This lightly told, but hardly frivolous, study of the mind/brain refutes many long-held notions of what comprises the conscious mind. Gazzinga's approach is an attempt to inform us all of the real status of "self." He contends the "self" - hence, "free will" is a conceit. We pretend to have consciousness through our desire to establish identity, but the brain has its own, hidden, mechanisms of which we are only now becoming aware. He stresses the evolutionary roots of our minds, roots which may not compel behaviour, but certainly drive it with forces we fail to perceive readily. It's an amazingly complete work in spite of its brevity, rewarding to anyone opening its pages.

Gazzaniga is a clinical researcher, not a field worker. This doesn't impede his stressing an evolutionary development for how our minds work. Gazzaniga posits an "interpreter" as residing within our left brains. The distinctive roles of the left and right halves of the brain have been the subject of intensive research during the past years, but his assessment has some novelty. It is rather more than the classical "Cartesian Theatre" which has held sway in the minds of many psychologists and philosophers over the years. Gazzaniga's "interpreter" outperforms the role of "observer" postulated by Descartes. It has moved from Descartes' pineal gland to the left cortex. In Gazzaniga's view, the "interpreter" has a more active role, even powered to stimulate activity in sensory areas, previously thought to be wholly reactive. This device is rooted in our animal ancestors, living in a dangerous environment, needing to predict events for survival and reproduction. We have progressed beyond those roots, but the function has had long career, according to Gazzaniga. He stresses that we must learn more about its abilities and operations.

His use of sources is awkward. While utilizing the work of numerous researchers in his account, his attributions are hazy. The appended notes are collected by chapters, but relating the list to the text is difficult. Countless workers noted in the text fail to appear in the notes. We have only Gazzaniga's assurances that his references are valid. While his approach makes for easy readability, one's own "interpreter" sits uncomfortable at these omissions. Many well-known figures in consciousness studies are omitted. He builds a superb case, but it seems to rest on a shaky foundation. Still, his assertions need response and it will be fascinating to see who answers his contentions.

Rating:
Summary: Is there a "self" in there?
Review: This lightly told, but hardly frivolous, study of the mind/brain refutes many long-held notions of what comprises the conscious mind. Gazzinga's approach is an attempt to inform us all of the real status of "self." He contends the "self" - hence, "free will" is a conceit. We pretend to have consciousness through our desire to establish identity, but the brain has its own, hidden, mechanisms of which we are only now becoming aware. He stresses the evolutionary roots of our minds, roots which may not compel behaviour, but certainly drive it with forces we fail to perceive readily. It's an amazingly complete work in spite of its brevity, rewarding to anyone opening its pages.

Gazzaniga is a clinical researcher, not a field worker. This doesn't impede his stressing an evolutionary development for how our minds work. Gazzaniga posits an "interpreter" as residing within our left brains. The distinctive roles of the left and right halves of the brain have been the subject of intensive research during the past years, but his assessment has some novelty. It is rather more than the classical "Cartesian Theatre" which has held sway in the minds of many psychologists and philosophers over the years. Gazzaniga's "interpreter" outperforms the role of "observer" postulated by Descartes. It has moved from Descartes' pineal gland to the left cortex. In Gazzaniga's view, the "interpreter" has a more active role, even powered to stimulate activity in sensory areas, previously thought to be wholly reactive. This device is rooted in our animal ancestors, living in a dangerous environment, needing to predict events for survival and reproduction. We have progressed beyond those roots, but the function has had long career, according to Gazzaniga. He stresses that we must learn more about its abilities and operations.

His use of sources is awkward. While utilizing the work of numerous researchers in his account, his attributions are hazy. The appended notes are collected by chapters, but relating the list to the text is difficult. Countless workers noted in the text fail to appear in the notes. We have only Gazzaniga's assurances that his references are valid. While his approach makes for easy readability, one's own "interpreter" sits uncomfortable at these omissions. Many well-known figures in consciousness studies are omitted. He builds a superb case, but it seems to rest on a shaky foundation. Still, his assertions need response and it will be fascinating to see who answers his contentions.