 A Commendable Attempt at our Most Miraculous Question, 2006-12-05
-This is a leading neuroscientific contribution to explaining the nature of consciousness. The authors have written other books and abstracts (an excellent, concise summary by Dr. Edelman may be found in the NY Academy of Science Annals, Vol 882), but this one seems to have the most depth and development. The book was written in 2000 and is intended to give an overview, which makes it less prone to going out of date. In fact, it seems to give a reasonably sound foundational basis for understanding more recent developments, such as the role of electrical wave propagation in conscious activity.
-The main purpose of "Universe" is approaching the problem of how objectively describable events ("the external and internal world") produces private subjective experience. Many have attempted this but only recently have we been able to scientifically probe it (although our understanding still reflects the insights of the Greeks and other capable philosophers). The authors give us some unique suggestions for current understanding and integrating further developments. "Universe" builds a foundation of basic neural activity, discusses how computer modeling can offer hints to the working of the human mind although they cannot explain or duplicate it, discusses how conscious and unconscious neural activity may be integrated and differentiated, and suggests how neural activity self-selects (the authors expand upon an earlier thesis that Darwin's evolution is a far better foundation than directly psychological abstractions like Freud's). "Universe" humbly recognizes the incomprehensible vastness of the human mind (the authors call it "hyperastronomical"), and how unlikely it is that we will ever completely describe it except in a trivial sense. The authors suggest we are far better off conceiving of the mind and Consciousness as an incredibly dynamic Event rather than something static (Heraclitus was too kind -- we cannot even have the same thought once, let alone twice). The authors seem to make a major descriptive contribution by insights into the Dynamic Core Hypothesis ( a highly differentiated, anatomically clustered, complex, and self-coordinating functioning of neuronal groups) and re-entry (a continuous reciprocal signalling, roughly similar to a coordinated and massively dynamic feedback type system, which can integrate anatomically segregated areas of the brain without demanding a central "man-in-the-box" coordination area). The authors' discussion of Qualia (the quality and intensity of private subjective experience) seems to reflect our continued inability to describe these phenomena as accurately as we would like.
-"Universe" can be as challenging as you want it to be, and it is an interesting and thoughtful study of consciousness from leading and respected scientists. The notes and Bibliography are excellent, and the authors wisely uses space to develop his ideas, rather than give an overview of everyone else's. The authors admit this is not some kind of final theory of consciousness, but it seems a reasonable description of some of the issues and foundations for consciousness. It is like setting out on an expedition with a basically accurate but incomplete map, which can be changed and filled in along the way, rather than relying on guesswork or hearsay.
As a suggestion to help you enjoy this book, I found it greatly helped to set aside a few minutes to scan each chapter before reading it, which helped appreciate the continuity of the arguments. I also found a neuroanatomy atlas (such as Nolte) useful.
The BEST Book on Consciousness -- By Far, 2005-08-07
This is a most exciting and most challenging read on consciousness. Finally, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neurochemistry return as the hallmarks of the theory, bolstered by a high amount of "Neural Darwinism," in order, "to formulate a specific hypothesis about the kinds of neural processes that can account for the fundamental integrative and informative properties of conscious experience." The theory, known as "neuronal group selection" is a completely naturalist, wholly scientific, empirically-sated theory of consciousness. (Some knowledge of statistics will help, but is not necessary, for some middle chapters.)
Rejected is Pinker's computational model of the brain ("How the Mind Words"). Gone are Damasio's dysfunctional subjects as counter-illustrations of the normative ("Descartes' Error" et alia). Gone too is Johnston's entirely solipsistic theory of mind ("Why We Feel"). Also ignored are the philosophical speculation and armchair conjectures one encounters in Chalmer's "The Conscious Mind," Dennett's "Consciousness Explained," and Penrose's "Shadows of the Mind."
Instead, Edleman and Tononi in "The Universe of Consciousness" respond to philosopher John Searle's demand for a strictly functional and biological account of consciousness (see, Searle's "Rediscovery of Mind" and "Mystery of Consciousness"). Among the some of the enigmas rejected is the representational theory of memory; in its stead is an associative and creative replicational theory of memory, which is dynamic and reacting to its environment always anew. If one learns anything from this book, it is that consciousness is not a state(s) of mind, but a complex, dynamic, and integrative neural process.
This fascinating, detective-like examination of consciousness is not for the casual reader; this is a demanding and rigorous read: Concepts like perceptual categorization, memory reactivation, concepts, values, etc. that depend on a wholly Darwinian sense of developmental selection, experimental selection, and "reentry" ("the process of ongoing and recursive signaling between separate brain maps along massively parallel anatomical connections"), all combine with detailed neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neurochemistry in order to substantiate the theory. The theory requires one's complete, but undivided, attention. It's a difficult subject, but masterful job.
While the book is both exciting and a challenge, I admire the authors' ability to tackle a difficult task without complicating it with arcane, elliptic, or meandering conversation (cf., Pinker). This is an exciting, engaging, but very serious, book on a theory of consciousness. Where difficult concepts and biologies require, analogies are provided. Indubitably, "Universe of Consciousness" is the best written, empirical, biological, and conceptual account of consciousness I've read, and I've read more than a few. My only criticism, since it's warranted, is stylistic: The dense content could be helped by less-dense sentential structures. Otherwise, I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
 Boring, 2005-06-08
I have been reading about the brain and working of the mind for a few years now (I am 50). I am also a university professor in engineering and consider myself well-informed. I have read many popular science books which are popular because they are interesting to general readers. This books utterly lacks interesting points especially for someone who is already familiar with the working of the brain. I am wondering if there is a reviewing conspiracy to glamorize this book which not only throws neurological jargon at you in bundles, but, at the end offers nothing content-wise. What theory? That consciousness arises from a complex and highly integrated system? Dah.. I wonder how you reached that conclusion. There is a good use for a book full of jibberish however - I use it before bed and it puts me to sleep immediately, for that reason I give it 2 starts. For a book on this subject, one can read the first and last chapters and know what the content of the book is in a nutshell. I have read them a few times and everytime I am completely blank - nothing, this books says nothing ... but it may impress some people as highly significant becasue the presentation is highly cast in scietific terms.
Imagine a complex subject ..., 2004-11-17
How does matter become imagination? That's the compelling subtitle of this work. The answer is not easy to follow but Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi make the effort worthwhile. I had to work to keep up with the subject. It felt like a difficult but positive workout.
The subject matter is dense. The authors have created a writing style which in no way dumbs down the subject for its audience - if the audience is someone like me, a knowledgeable lay-person. I appreciated the chapter prefaces and came back to them often as I made my way into the billions of possible mind states.
Edelman and Tononi put forward an in depth theory of the brain's machinations to achieve consciousness. With effort the reader will get a wonderful perspective on how the world out there becomes the inner world of imagination. I applaud the authors for their research and communication skills on such a difficult subject. I recommend this book to everyone interested in the subject of consciousness and who are willing to expend some gray matter to follow the discourse.
Interesting, intelligent work that aims a bit too high, 2003-09-10
There is no doubt in my mind, after reading this book, that the authors have done excellent scientific work and made very interesting discoveries. On the other hand, it has certain problems.To start with, it seems clear that they do not have a full grasp of the philosophical problems they are attempting to resolve - or if they do, they avoid going into the stickier points. This is not necessarily a reason to condemn the book; there are huge volumes of philosophy on this subject, and it would be futile to try and fit a quick resolution into one small volume already full of other facts. Nonetheless, they probably should have avoided the philosophical aspect entirely if all they were going to do is attack the mind/body problem in a way that arguably does nothing but shift the terms around a bit to produce the appearance of a resolution. There is essentially nothing new here, philosophically, and they certainly had more than enough interesting material for a book without attempting this. A second thing that disappointed me is the lack of contrasting points of view. It seems unfair to ask an author to present a summary of theories which argue against his own, but in fact it's in the best interest of an author/scientist. What are the points of contention between theories, and what are the alternate explanations? This gives the author an ideal chance to explain why their theory is superior, what it has that the others lack... and in turn it gives the reader the chance to be convinced (or not) by the force of the argument, which is always more intellectually satisfying than being led by the nose. Stylistically, also, it could have used a bit of revision. Long, complex sentences are fine (great, even) for something like Proust. When you populate those sentences - even if they're perfect grammatically - with large and generally unfamiliar scientific terms, it can be quite awkward. This happened just frequently enough to be a nuisance, as far as I was concerned. So, apart from these criticisms, the subject material is still interesting. I would be inclined, however, to look for a more recent title by these authors (or others) on the subject. A lot can be discovered in a few years, and hopefully the experience they gained in writing this book will help them produce a work with a bit more polish.
|
