Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (Paperback)

by Antonio R. Damasio (Author) "dandy dancing his tap shoes over ties and tracks, moving with vigor and grace..." (more)
Key Phrases: early visual cortices, dispositional representations, brain sectors, Phineas Gage, Aunt Maggie, Hanna Damasio (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Neurologist Damasio's refutation of the Cartesian idea of the human mind as separate from bodily processes draws on neurochemistry to support his claim that emotions play a central role in human decision making.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
The idea that the mind exists as a distinct entity from the body has profoundly influenced Western culture since Descartes proclaimed, "I think, therefore I am." Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa and a prominent researcher on human brain function, challenges this premise in a fascinating and well-reasoned argument on the central role that emotion and feelings play in human rationality. According to Damasio, the same brain structures regulate both human biology and behavior and are indispensable to normal cognitive processes. Damasio demonstrates how patients (his own as well as the 19th-century railroad worker Nicholas Gage) with prefrontal cortical damage can no longer generate the emotions necessary for effective decision-making. A gifted scientist and writer, Damasio combines an Oliver Sack-like reportage with the presentation of complex, theoretical issues in neurobiology. Recommended for wide purchase.
Laurie Bartolini, Legislative Research, Springfield, Ill.
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 336 pages
• Publisher: Harper Perennial; 1 edition (November 1, 1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0380726475
• ISBN-13: 978-0380726479
• Product Dimensions: 8 x 5.3 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 10.1 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars See all reviews (56 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #313,962 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

43 of 44 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent, June 16, 2002

By	magellan (Santa Clara, CA) - See all my reviews (TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (COMMUNITY FORUM 04)

Damasio's book will be somewhat tough sledding for the non-specialist, but it's still a good book and worth sticking with to the end. Using Descartes's famous dictum as a departure point, and through a discussion of current theory and detailed case studies, he demonstrates the intimate relationship between the brain, mind, and body.

The case studies of sensory agnosia were very interesting, especially the one where the patient had apparently lost the functioning of the part of his brain that stored the awareness of one side of the patient's body, to the point where the patient had no awareness or perception of that half at all, and even denied that he even had a problem with it. There can be no clearer demonstration of the fact that our consciousness and awareness depends entirely on that 3-pound, convoluted mass of nerve cells we call the brain.

As someone with a pretty fair background in the area myself (I did a master's and almost completed a Ph.D. in psychobiology) I can vouch for Damasio's command of the scientific and technical issues and details (notwithstanding that fact that Damasio is both an M.D. and a Ph.D.) so he has a good command of the medical issues also. The book is very well written, although not easy, but Damasio does a fine job of explaining the more difficult ideas.

One further comment, I read one review that was critical of Damasio for supposedly misinterpreting Descartes's dictum, "I think, therefore I am," and then spent the whole review discussing Descartes instead of Damasio's book. The reviewer also stated that because of this Damasio lacks scientific objectivity. Since his comment is itself a good starting point for discussing the most important aspect of Damasio's book, I thought I'd write a little more on it here.

Whether or not Damasio's interpretation of Descartes dictum is wrong or not, (and from the other reviewer's disjointed discussion, that itself isn't very clear), this is a minor detail, since Damasio simply uses this as a point of departure and from there on the vast majority of the book is devoted to a discussion of the neurological and brain issues, not to the technical details of the philosophy of mind-body dualism, for which there are already plenty of other discussions out there (having read many of them myself).

However one should precisely interpret Descartes's famous statement, Damasio is completely correct in pointing out the most important aspect of Descartes's idea--that the mind is fundamentally different from the brain itself and that one needs a dualistic theory to explain the separation of the apparently immaterial mind from the more material body--is wrong.

Although echoes of this theory can still be seen in modern philosophy, and were an important influence on idealist philosophers that followed Descartes, such as Kant, and even continue to have an influence on modern neo-Kantian theory and other thinkers, the advance of modern neurobiology has shown that these theories are fundamentally wrong.

Since we're on the subject--and to be completely fair--I will that say that one aspect of Kant's theory is quite accurate--that the mind is actively involved in organizing the data of the senses--and that ideas about the external world could not exist unless there were corresponding mental capabilities and constucts to match. Our understanding of sensory information processing and of advanced cortical abilities certainly show that the brain has evolved in a way that reflects the need for specific capabilities to enhance our survival in a dangerous world. Kant's idea that there are inborn mental faculties that allow us to form ideas about the external world isn't so different from this idea, and in that sense, Kant was right. (This would have been a good point for the other reviewer to make, but he got lost in the trivial details, and failed to see "the forest for the trees" (as he himself incorrectly said of Damasio)).

Anyway, returning to Damasio's book, this is well-written book on a fascinating aspect of modern neurobiology, and which has profound implications for western philosophies of idealism and dualism. Although not an easy book for the non-specialist, it's worth the effort.

I have one final suggestion to make, and that is you might want to read Michael Gazzaniga's more general introduction to neurobiology: "Nature's Mind: The Biological Roots of Thinking, Emotions, Sexuality, Language, and Intelligence," before tackling this one. It's also an excellent book and you'll have a more well-rounded understanding of the brain field which should stand you in good stead to tackle this book, or any other brain-oriented books, after reading it.

108 of 127 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Fine work, but Ryle got there first., October 18, 1999

By	Richard Parker (Chico, CA) - See all my reviews

Damasio brings some some fascinating cases to bear on one of the oldest problems in philosophy and psychology. It's a good read and an important subject. It would be a mistake, however, to think that "Descartes' error" was just now being pointed out. In fact, practically no contemporary philosopher worth his or her salt subscribes to the Cartesian two-substance theory of body and mind. In his 1949 masterpiece, The Concept of Mind, Gilbert Ryle argued that Descartes' view was fatally flawed (and he wasn't really the first to point this out, either), and called it the "ghost in the machine" view of the body/mind relationship. If you get right down to it, Descartes himself would agree with Damasio that the emotions are not radically different kinds of things from the reasoning faculties, since he believed that experiencing an emotion was simply another mode of thought, just as drawing an inference is a mode of thought. But Descartes must be used to being a whipping boy by now, 350 years after his death; and the historical perspective aside, Damasio's book is an excellent contribution to scholarship on the effects of emotion on rationality.

16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Some hints for enjoying this book more, December 24, 2003

By	Brad4d "bb" (United States) - See all my reviews

Other reviewers have surely summarized and analyzed this fine book far better than I could, so here are some hints that may help you productively enjoy it:
1.) scan sections of the book before and after you read them. The author's simple expositions are terrific but the organization and data blending can be confusing, and the pace of such a book often slows uncomfortably. 2.) If you are new to this subject (and any non-professional who hasn't had a CNS course recently is probably a beginner) I'd supplement this book with a good but lighter introduction to brain research (I'd strongly recommend the NYT Book of the Brain). 3.) I'd advise using a good neuroanatomy text or atlas like Barr or Hanaway. The author's maps are surprisingly skimpy and I strongly hope he includes a few pages of neuroanatomical diagrams in any future editions. 4.) You may want to underline terms and definitions, and note the reference at the back of the book -- the book has no glossary and the index is annoyingly weak. 5.) I thought the most valuable sections were on the Somatic Marker Hypothesis, the Body-Minded Brain, and the Postscriptum -- consider scanning these sections first.
Good luck and enjoy. The author's credentials are superb, his perspective complements other authors such as Edelmann and LeDoux, and he brings the unique and empathetic perspective of a neurologist who has specialied in analyzing the changes associated wtih discrete neuropathological conditions. The ideas you may receive from this wonderful book should be well worth the effort, and you should gain some insight into the miracle of how we think/feel/are.