Rating: 
Summary: A mixed bag.
Review: First of all, I agree with Murray Moffat that the first part of this book, which dicusses the criteria of personhood (a moral concept) is boring. This is because it is too loosely written. Hanley's discussion seems unfocused; sometimes one paragraph does not seem to follow from another. I still have not figured out what precisely the author concludes about organisms that display linguistic behavior, for instance. His comments on this issue are scattered, and, I believe, are never satisfactorily brought together. Chapters 4 and 5 of Part II constitute by far the best part of the work. In these chapters, Hanley discusses personal identity over time, i.e. synchronic identity, in opposition to diachronic identity, or identity at an instant, discussed in the first part. The first part of the book asks, "How can we identify a person?" and the first two chapters of the second part ask, "How can we identify the SAME person at two different times?" Hanley makes a compelling case (though, ultimately, I cannot agree) in the second part that continuity of psychology or pscychological states must be our guide in determining who is the same person as whom. The final chapter, chapter 6, seems somewhat disconnected from the rest of the book in discussing time travel, though this topic obviously fits with the general theme of the book. It is a satisfying discussion, though not as lively as that in the preceding two chapters. The epilogue seems preachy and entirely out of place, but only comprises a few pages. So, the rating for this book breaks down as follows:Part I (chapters 1-3): 3 stars
Chapters 4 and 5: 5 stars
Chapter 6: 4 stars
Epilogue: 1 star Averaging, but discounting the epilogue (since it is so short), we arrive at the rating of 4 stars for the book overall.
Rating:
Summary: A mixed bag.
Review: First of all, I agree with Murray Moffat that the first part of this book, which dicusses the criteria of personhood (a moral concept) is boring. This is because it is too loosely written. Hanley's discussion seems unfocused; sometimes one paragraph does not seem to follow from another. I still have not figured out what precisely the author concludes about organisms that display linguistic behavior, for instance. His comments on this issue are scattered, and, I believe, are never satisfactorily brought together. Chapters 4 and 5 of Part II constitute by far the best part of the work. In these chapters, Hanley discusses personal identity over time, i.e. synchronic identity, in opposition to diachronic identity, or identity at an instant, discussed in the first part. The first part of the book asks, "How can we identify a person?" and the first two chapters of the second part ask, "How can we identify the SAME person at two different times?" Hanley makes a compelling case (though, ultimately, I cannot agree) in the second part that continuity of psychology or pscychological states must be our guide in determining who is the same person as whom. The final chapter, chapter 6, seems somewhat disconnected from the rest of the book in discussing time travel, though this topic obviously fits with the general theme of the book. It is a satisfying discussion, though not as lively as that in the preceding two chapters. The epilogue seems preachy and entirely out of place, but only comprises a few pages. So, the rating for this book breaks down as follows: Part I (chapters 1-3): 3 stars
Chapters 4 and 5: 5 stars
Chapter 6: 4 stars
Epilogue: 1 star Averaging, but discounting the epilogue (since it is so short), we arrive at the rating of 4 stars for the book overall.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting
Review: I decided to read this book after finishing Lawrence Krauss' The Physics of Star Trek and was surprised to learn that there's a whole lot more controversial stuff going on in Star Trek than just the technological aspects. Krauss' brings up some interesting philosophical viewpoints. I was hoping he would give a little more of his opinion in the book, he stayed mostly neutral throughout his arguments, but I guess that lets us draw our own conclusions. The book gets a little slow and difficult to read a times but I think it is worth reading if you're a Star Trek fan and ever thought about the possibility of an artificial intelligence like Data.
Rating:
Summary: More thought provoking than your usual Star Trek episode.
Review: I really would only recommend this book to Star Trek fans, since the author frequently refers to the episodes. They would probably find it very intriguing. I still was able to enjoy it because I knew a little about philosophy and AI; however, if you're not familiar with Star Trek or philosophy of mind, then don't bother. Of course, that should go without saying...
Rating:
Summary: Interesting in parts...
Review: If you're interested in Star Trek _and_ philosophy then this is the book for you! However if you like Star Trek but aren't too fussed about philosophy then you might want to give this one a miss. I found the first half of this book, discussing what constitutes intelligence and what is "a person", fairly boring. Things picked up a bit when the author moved on to transporters and time travel, but I've got to question some of the authors technical knowledge. He may know lots about philosophy but his physics is a bit shaky at times. Of course philosophy being such a "hairy-fairy" science (some people don't even class it as a "real" science) it's very hard to argue with the authors conclusions. It's not like you can _prove_ anything, is it? A much better read are Lawrence Krauss' books "The Physics of Star Trek" and "Beyond Star Trek".
Rating:
Summary: Interesting in parts...
Review: If you're interested in Star Trek _and_ philosophy then this is the book for you! However if you like Star Trek but aren't too fussed about philosophy then you might want to give this one a miss. I found the first half of this book, discussing what constitutes intelligence and what is "a person", fairly boring. Things picked up a bit when the author moved on to transporters and time travel, but I've got to question some of the authors technical knowledge. He may know lots about philosophy but his physics is a bit shaky at times. Of course philosophy being such a "hairy-fairy" science (some people don't even class it as a "real" science) it's very hard to argue with the authors conclusions. It's not like you can _prove_ anything, is it? A much better read are Lawrence Krauss' books "The Physics of Star Trek" and "Beyond Star Trek".
Rating: 
Summary: Don't waste your money on this garbage
Review: Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but after studying Philosophy for 2 years, this book was an insult. It didn't offer me any new insights into star trek, or the philosophy behind it. Instead, it made me realize that anybody can make a buck, despite the poor quality of their work, if they take the opportunities before them and act on them quick enough, and thats what this guy did. He must have read "The Physics of Star Trek", realized the oppotunity before him, and jumped at it, at the expense of myself and others.
Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your money on this garbage
Review: Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but after studying Philosophy for 2 years, this book was an insult. It didn't offer me any new insights into star trek, or the philosophy behind it. Instead, it made me realize that anybody can make a buck, despite the poor quality of their work, if they take the opportunities before them and act on them quick enough, and thats what this guy did. He must have read "The Physics of Star Trek", realized the oppotunity before him, and jumped at it, at the expense of myself and others.
Rating:
Summary: I want to Burn This book
Review: This book is horrible. If I didn't have to read this book for class, I would burn it right now. It is arguing fiction with nonfiction. I think we all know machines aren't human! Don't waste your money unless you idolize Star Trek.
Rating:
Summary: Don't Waste Your Money!
Review: This book was an insult to my intelligence to be brutally honest. This guy must have read, "The Physics Behind Star Trek", and realized he could make a buck by hitting on the Metaphysics. I've been studying Philosophy (Thats what Metaphysics is) for the last three years, and theres not ANYTHING that I actually considered useful. If it wasn't for the fact that I must finish any book I start, I wouldn't have finished this one. You, the reader, whether educated in this subject or not, could probobly put together a better piece of work. I recommend you invest your money in birth control, at least you'll get some use and pleasure out of that.
| 
