-
Seasonal Offer:
This title is part of our Seasonal Offers promotion.
Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| |||||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £0.25
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £0.25, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Special Offers and Product Promotions
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Review
A very thought-provoking book. (The Guardian )
The Guardian
"A very thought-provoking book."
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Many books in this excellent series have provided clear and balanced introductions to their subjects - but not this one. It becomes clear early on that the author is determined to "sell" her take on the subject, which seems to be pretty much the same as that of Daniel Dennett. This rather unhelpful view is that consciousness does not exist and that we "imagine" it, missing the obvious problem that there has to be a consciousness to be able to imagine anything. Much experimental data is summarised to show that things are not exactly how they seem but there is no logical link between these findings and her nihilistic conclusion. For example the evidence that a decision to make a simple movement seems to have been made before we become aware of it only shows that some actions are controlled unconsciously - as everyday experience of eg walking illustrates: the "record keeping" function of consciousness does not require it to precede every action and she is quite unjustified in extrapolating this to asserting that consciousness is not involved in more complex decision-making.
She does not seem to have any clear idea of the value of consciousness in imagining hypothetical situations allowing us to formulate contingency plans, an important reason for humans and possibly other higher mammals to have evolved this capacity. She prefers to regard it as an incidental (and unexplained) by-product of parallel processing in the brain - again with no logical support for this assertion.
The author's dismissive viewpoint allows her to side-step the difficult problems of the subject and these are barely addressed in this disappointing book.
She does not seem to have any clear idea of the value of consciousness in imagining hypothetical situations allowing us to formulate contingency plans, an important reason for humans and possibly other higher mammals to have evolved this capacity. She prefers to regard it as an incidental (and unexplained) by-product of parallel processing in the brain - again with no logical support for this assertion.
The author's dismissive viewpoint allows her to side-step the difficult problems of the subject and these are barely addressed in this disappointing book.
17 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Considering that this is a Very Short Introduction, this book is odd and I am ambivalent towards it.
On the one hand, it is well-written, persuasive and thought-provoking. On the other, it is openly biased and inappropriate for a short introduction to a new subject.
My misgivings about it mainly concern the style of presentation of the subject rather than Blackmore's actual opinions. These may or may not be correct, but it is unusual in an introductory work to present and then dismiss the opinions of swathes of other researchers and present your own views in the best light possible.
For example, the use of the word "magic" in scientific literature when describing a theory is obviously pejorative. Yet Blackmore uses it in this way several times, while also describing the theories of Descartes and the 20th century scientists Popper and Eccles as "hopeless". The only theories that receive unequivocal backing are her own and those of Daniel Dennett. Other opinions are often explained in terms of facile metaphors which lead the unguarded reader to see such views as silly.
Balance is not an easy thing to achieve and objectivity is, of course, the impossible goal. Yet Blackmore should have tried harder. The perspective she has may well be valid, but in an introductory work one should give a broad outline of the field and let the reader decide which arguments seems the most interesting or plausible. At most the reader can be given a prod in the directions that seem the most fruitful, but Blackmore indulges in several hearty shoves.
The above is the main criticism, but I also wonder whether Blackmore fully believes what she is saying or whether she has thought about the true implications.
Firstly, it is rather strange to write an introduction to a field of study and then argue that the thing being discussed is an illusion and does not exist - why not write an introduction to alchemy? Would a convinced atheist write a book introducing theology?
Secondly, consider this quote (p81), discussing the self: "We can equate it with some kind of brain process and shelve the problem of why this brain process should have conscious experience at all, or we can reject any persisting entity that corresponds to our feeling of being a self. I think that intellectually we have to take this last path." In the space of a few lines, Blackmore dismisses the self and uses the words "I think...". If the self does not exist, what does it mean to say "I think"? Whether or not Blackmore's view on the self is correct or not, her view on this and her writing a book on consciousness are blatantly contradictory. Who will read it? Why put your name on the cover? Perhaps "she" has thought of this: if the self does not exist, "she" can hardly be blamed for any flaws in the book.
Overall, it is a stimulating book to read and it will get you interested in the subject, but some may be tempted to throw it out of the window at various points. Perhaps Oxford should rename it a Very Controversial Introduction.
On the one hand, it is well-written, persuasive and thought-provoking. On the other, it is openly biased and inappropriate for a short introduction to a new subject.
My misgivings about it mainly concern the style of presentation of the subject rather than Blackmore's actual opinions. These may or may not be correct, but it is unusual in an introductory work to present and then dismiss the opinions of swathes of other researchers and present your own views in the best light possible.
For example, the use of the word "magic" in scientific literature when describing a theory is obviously pejorative. Yet Blackmore uses it in this way several times, while also describing the theories of Descartes and the 20th century scientists Popper and Eccles as "hopeless". The only theories that receive unequivocal backing are her own and those of Daniel Dennett. Other opinions are often explained in terms of facile metaphors which lead the unguarded reader to see such views as silly.
Balance is not an easy thing to achieve and objectivity is, of course, the impossible goal. Yet Blackmore should have tried harder. The perspective she has may well be valid, but in an introductory work one should give a broad outline of the field and let the reader decide which arguments seems the most interesting or plausible. At most the reader can be given a prod in the directions that seem the most fruitful, but Blackmore indulges in several hearty shoves.
The above is the main criticism, but I also wonder whether Blackmore fully believes what she is saying or whether she has thought about the true implications.
Firstly, it is rather strange to write an introduction to a field of study and then argue that the thing being discussed is an illusion and does not exist - why not write an introduction to alchemy? Would a convinced atheist write a book introducing theology?
Secondly, consider this quote (p81), discussing the self: "We can equate it with some kind of brain process and shelve the problem of why this brain process should have conscious experience at all, or we can reject any persisting entity that corresponds to our feeling of being a self. I think that intellectually we have to take this last path." In the space of a few lines, Blackmore dismisses the self and uses the words "I think...". If the self does not exist, what does it mean to say "I think"? Whether or not Blackmore's view on the self is correct or not, her view on this and her writing a book on consciousness are blatantly contradictory. Who will read it? Why put your name on the cover? Perhaps "she" has thought of this: if the self does not exist, "she" can hardly be blamed for any flaws in the book.
Overall, it is a stimulating book to read and it will get you interested in the subject, but some may be tempted to throw it out of the window at various points. Perhaps Oxford should rename it a Very Controversial Introduction.
16 of 21 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
While neuroscientific research provides ever more detailed pictures of the brain's physiology and its intricate and staggeringly complex processing abilities, its presumed superiority as a means for answering the philosophical questions posed by any honest enquiry into the nature of consciousness or "knowingness" - not to mention self-consciousness - seems quite grossly overestimated in this book. Writers of Blackmore's ilk (Dennett and Dawkins are well-known frequenters of the same club) rely heavily on ridiculing "naive" or "speculative" theories which have been troubling philosophy for millennia. It's as though their own misconceptions about anything metaphysical are necessarily shared by the rest of us and necessarily prove that metaphysics and religious dogma are one and the same. Well they aren't, and there are plenty of very intelligent, earnest, open-minded and dedicated seekers of truth (as opposed to fact, a discrepancy dangerously overlooked by many an otherwise diligent scientist) who are no doubt more than a little disturbed by the irresponsible and disillusioning views presented in this book. It's not pleasant to be disabused of any belief or psychological crutch, and I was astonished to read that Blackmore casually imparted the "fact" of there being no self to the volunteers in her replication of Libet's experiment, and that she seemed surprised to note their "depression" at this conclusion. Surely a psychologist would understand the implications of such an action. The reaction of another of the reviewers here is not uncommon, I suspect, and it is perhaps only those who don't understand the implications of her assertion who are immune to its effects.
Psychoanalytic literature is riddled with accounts of patients who have become so traumatised as to have completely dissociated from themselves. This can manifest in such an extreme way as to leave the sufferer permanently without any sense of there being a "self" whatsoever. It is reported as being the most undesirable state of affairs. It is, in fact, the closest (hopefully!) anyone will come to becoming the zombie so casually invoked in so many philosophical "thought experiments." Conversely, the opposite process - that of gradually revealing the repressed, hidden and reviled self - is the aim of psychoanalytic therapy, and this process (if successful - and it rarely is, thanks, no doubt, to the hopeless attitude engendered by these nihilistic physicalist theories) always involves recognising something which feels like an "authentic self." Blackmore's assumptions radically undermine the possibility of psychotherapies ever being truly effective, and I'm sure they support more superficial and cognitive based therapies. And psychoanalytic theory is the tip of a very big philosophical iceberg in relation to theories pertaining to metaphysical actuality.
But the real danger is that this book, in overreaching its premise so radically, actually contributes even further to the greatest "delusion" of all - the "fact" that metaphysics is dead. This is simply not true, and I'm genuinely disturbed at the conceit with which modern "philosophers" like Blackmore are allowed to approach their readers, especially since most of these readers are as yet unable to formulate sophisticated arguments of their own; which is why, of course, they would want to buy an unbiased, balanced, critical, scientific work written by a trustworthy expert in the field. Instead, I'm afraid readers will get a potentially lethal dose of irresponsible one-sidedness.
That, at least, is my opinion on the matter.....
Psychoanalytic literature is riddled with accounts of patients who have become so traumatised as to have completely dissociated from themselves. This can manifest in such an extreme way as to leave the sufferer permanently without any sense of there being a "self" whatsoever. It is reported as being the most undesirable state of affairs. It is, in fact, the closest (hopefully!) anyone will come to becoming the zombie so casually invoked in so many philosophical "thought experiments." Conversely, the opposite process - that of gradually revealing the repressed, hidden and reviled self - is the aim of psychoanalytic therapy, and this process (if successful - and it rarely is, thanks, no doubt, to the hopeless attitude engendered by these nihilistic physicalist theories) always involves recognising something which feels like an "authentic self." Blackmore's assumptions radically undermine the possibility of psychotherapies ever being truly effective, and I'm sure they support more superficial and cognitive based therapies. And psychoanalytic theory is the tip of a very big philosophical iceberg in relation to theories pertaining to metaphysical actuality.
But the real danger is that this book, in overreaching its premise so radically, actually contributes even further to the greatest "delusion" of all - the "fact" that metaphysics is dead. This is simply not true, and I'm genuinely disturbed at the conceit with which modern "philosophers" like Blackmore are allowed to approach their readers, especially since most of these readers are as yet unable to formulate sophisticated arguments of their own; which is why, of course, they would want to buy an unbiased, balanced, critical, scientific work written by a trustworthy expert in the field. Instead, I'm afraid readers will get a potentially lethal dose of irresponsible one-sidedness.
That, at least, is my opinion on the matter.....
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Most Recent Customer Reviews
A stimulating introduction to one of life's great mysteries
This is a well-written and thought-provoking treatment of one of life's most profound mysteries. Concise, intelligible and accessible, it raises questions and topics that are... Read more
Published on 13 Mar 2010 by Steve M
Excellent
This does exactly what it suggests! Gave an excellent overview, would definitely buy other books in this range.
Published on 6 Feb 2010 by Ms. Emily K. Earnshaw
Brilliant brief overview
Lucid and compelling introduction to a number of issues concerning consciousness and just how hard it is to get a grip on what seems to be obvious at first. Read more
Published on 4 April 2009 by D. Stephens
A short introduction
This book was recommended as a short introduction to the topic of consciousness on a psychology degree course I am studying and it is short enough not to be heavy going. Read more
Published on 15 Mar 2009 by W. Harris
Perfect introduction to a complex and profound subject
The relationship between mind and body, and the tremendous difficulty of explaining that relationship, has been a central theme in modern philosophy since Descartes' famous 'cogito... Read more
Published on 6 July 2008 by Bruno
A great little primer on the subject
A terrific little book that should only have taken me a few hours to read, but instead took a week because I frequently stopped to ponder the philosophically challenging examples... Read more
Published on 18 Oct 2007 by Karel Bata
"The subjective experience is only a fleeting event that gives rise to...
And what's worse, "If you go on believing you are always conscious, and construct metaphors about streams and theatres, then you only dig yourself deeper and deeper into... Read more
Published on 25 Sep 2007 by josephllewellyn
Understanding consciousness: A brief review
What is consciousness? How do a set of electrical responses of millions of brain cells produce private, subjective conscious experience? Read more
Published on 29 Aug 2007 by Rama Rao
A great scientist takes a wrong turning
I first encountered Blackmore when, after searching long and hard for a scientific explanation of out-of-body experiences, I came across her book Beyond the Body. Read more
Published on 12 Aug 2007 by Peter Reeve
A good layman's guide
The prevoius reviewer's minor criticisms accepted, it is important to exactly define consciousness, question easily held misconceptions and illusions, and this demands a... Read more
Published on 6 Aug 2005 by john elved lewis
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
|
|
Look for similar items by category
- Books > Health, Family & Lifestyle > Medical & Healthcare Practitioners > Internal Medicine > Neurology & Clinical Neurophysiology
- Books > Health, Family & Lifestyle > Psychology & Psychiatry > Cognition & Cognitive Psychology
- Books > Health, Family & Lifestyle > Psychology & Psychiatry > Specific Topics > Conscious & Unconscious
- Books > Health, Family & Lifestyle > Psychology & Psychiatry > Specific Topics > The Self, Ego & Personality
- Books > Science & Nature > Biological Sciences > Biological Science > Developmental Biology
- Books > Science & Nature > Biological Sciences > Human Biology > Developmental Biology
- Books > Science & Nature > Medicine > Medical Sciences A-Z > Neurology
- Books > Scientific, Technical & Medical
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Academic Philosophy
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Philosophy
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
