The scientific study of consciousness has become an independent field already. No more can an author start a work on the subject complaining about how little is known, or how the subject is ignored, or how mystery surround the whole enterprise. Data on consciousness seems to come out of every laboratory, and new books are published monthly dealing specifically with consciousness and its physical basis. Given that this is roughly the state of the field, this book arrives in percfect timing, as quite possibly the first "real" textbook of the science of consciousness.
True, there have been many popular books on the subject, and amazingly complete collections of both philosophical and scientific issues relating to consciousness. But in most of these, researchers advance their personal theories, or philosophers argue in favour of various diferent positions, and at the end leave one with only one side of the debate, or with too specific information that one cannot put toghether into a larger picture.
This book, however, is diferent. Carter remains mostly objective, and manages to go over most of the major points of the dificult subject that is consicousness. As in any other textbook, of course, what is sacrified is detail. Everything ranging from embodiement, neuropsychology, neuroscience, the self, agency and ownerhsip, psi research and the quantum, philosophy and the hard problem, is given space and is covered adequately. All of this would be meaningless if it was not as clearly explained, and the book as clearly written, as was possible. Carter managed this and more. If the layperson was to read only one book on the subject, I am convinced it should be this one.
The layout of the book adds to its value. In between the text are various illustrations that, well, illustrate various points. There are also little esays by prominent figures in the field that go into more specific sub-issues. These are I think both helpful and flawed. Helpful, because they aquaint the newcomer with some important matters, but flawed because thay are so brief as to leave out other equaly important matters.
Not all can be praise, however. Carter first and most obvious flaw in writting is her incredibly small bibliography and citation, that gives the impression the author is not familiar with the literature. The chapter on the evolution of consicousness, for example, draws almost exclusively from work done by Nicholas Humphrey. His work is brilliant, but how forget Mandler, Denton, Donald, McPhail, among many, many others. The chapters on consicousness and the brain are good, but given that there are dozens of books on that specific issue, it seemed a bit plain. No mention of neruochemical theories, of the work of Weiskrantz, Baars, Newman, Delacour, Taylor, Cotterill, among many, many others. All of this is related as well with some little errors in content, like for example (and this is recurring) the claim that no visual consciousness can exist without v1 (area). Crick and Kotch, Lumer and ffytche, Weiskrantz, all have done experimental work that says otherwise.
Finally, there is the hard problem and psi research. Psi research should always be arround when one talks about consciousness, and so should quantum theories of consicousness. Carter almost only passingly mentions these fields, and the book is not a good introduction to these two sub-issues. Carter also constantly says not much can be said about the hard problem, about qualia. I think this is wrong, and showed to be so by data she presents in the book itself. If qualia are correlated to brain activity, transcranial stimulation of that brain area shown to cause that qualia, and damage of it shown to abolish qualia, is this not just a couple of steps away from understannding what qualia is all about? I am going to be optimistic and say that it is.