Customer Reviews

Human: The Science Behind What Makes Your Brain Unique

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

It is not often that lay readers have the opportunity to learn about the full spectrum of developments in a personally relevant academic discipline straight from one of the field's founders. As an added bonus, the author's exposition is so clear that it is truly a pleasure to read. In «Human», Michael Gazzaniga surveys the copious research findings of cognitive neuroscience and lucidly discusses the attendant implications on the practical art of being human.

Gazzaniga adopts an evolutionary perspective by demonstrating that "most human activity can be related to antecedents in other animals". But he goes on to show that despite the common biochemical and physiological make-up, humans are in fact very different from other creatures. It is as if "something like a phase shift has occurred in becoming human", he writes, referring to the phase transitions of matter. Mindful that general opinion is actually quite varied, however, the author duly mentions dissenting views in the book's afterword, such as "I think at the core humans are no different from animals" and the well-known "Humans are self-centered egotists". Thus the reader is informed of the wider range of critical judgment regarding the contested issue of our inherent humanity versus animality.

The grand tour starts out with a discussion of the remarkable organ that makes being human possible, the brain, followed by a comparison between humans and our closest living relatives, the chimps. Then the role of big brains in negotiating social worlds is examined, with particular attention devoted to the evolutionary development of morality (including the related themes of rationality and decision making) and of awareness and empathy. The distinctive achievements of humans are then perused, beginning with the production of art and music and continuing on to our dualist conception of consciousness, which brings to the fore Gazzaniga's renowned work with split-brain epileptic patients. The final chapter extends the inquiry into the realm of functional cyborgs, smart robots, artificial intelligence and genetic reengineering. A solid 40-page bibliography on the academic literature is included. (Mention of and references to certain commercial and industrial projects, such as Honda's Asimo humanoid robot and Toyota's partner robots, are not provided.)

The author's writing style is informal (conversational) and nontechnical, which should broaden the book's potential readership enormously. I would say that if you're into any of the fields related to brain science, and more so if because of a personal interest, then «Human» ought to be considered required reading.

The blurb on the cover indicates that this book by a neuroscientist gives us the "scientific understanding" of what it means to be human. The tone of the book throughout celebrates how science is finally shedding light on the mind and how it works, thanks to "modern research techniques." However, the reader will quickly find out the book does not live up to its promise, as it turns out we know very little about how the mind works. The book's claims are full of words like "may" and "might" and "perhaps" and "possibly" and so on; at one point Gazzaniga concedes that we don't even know what intelligence is, nor what processes in the brain produces it. But you're not going to have much of a theory of human nature if you don't even understand things so basic as consciousness and intelligence.

Much of the book consists either of inane trivialities, like: "One thing is for sure: music does increase positive affect, just as some visual stimuli do" (translation: we like nice music, and we like looking at pretty things). Or, "men's and women's behaviors differ in some areas" (Stop the presses!).

Much of the book simply lists the various speculative theories about certain aspects of human behavior. Take art for existence: Gazzaniga lists five distinct and mutually inconsistent theories of why humans make art, without any way of deciding between them. In short, we have no idea why humans produce art.

A further problem, common to much of "evolutionary psychology," is that most of the theories are more armchair speculations than empirical science. Gazzaniga tries hard to ground his claims in experimental evidence, but unfortunately the evidence is rather thin and difficult to interpret. For example, he badly misinterprets the famous "trolley problem" experiment in his attempt to prove we have a "hardwired" ethics. It is also unfortunate that he tends to make dogmatic pronouncements without telling you that many of his claims are not "scientifically proven" but are in fact quite controversial and without solid evidential basis; for example, the assumption that the mind is composed of numerous distinct modules is highly debatable and at best speculative (it also raises the question of how these modules get coordinated, the so-called "binding problem"; Gazzaniga's treatment of this question is simply confused).

There is certainly some interesting material here, for example on the question of just what properties of humans are unique. But don't expect that this book will give you the key to understanding human nature.

Let me say that my review is quite biased. I'm not offering an opinion (wouldn't be qualified anyway) on the quality of the scientific information presented, nor even on the author's ability to present it - even though I picked it up because I do have an interest in the subject. I give the book one star only for the self-absorbed reason that I was so immediately turned off by the author's attitude that I decided rather quickly not to continue reading it.

Gazzaniga is very open about his own bias in his prologue: "I love our species, and always have. I have never found it necessary to lessen our success and domination of this universe." OK. Fair enough, and certainly helpful to the reader for the author to state his perspective so plainly. But unfortunately, for this reader at least, he's a little too consumed with his own supeirity over his subjects. From chapter 2:

"There isn't a human being on earth who does not look at his or her dog or cat ... without an irrational reverence and fondness."

Irrational fondness? Does he really mean that? Indeed he does. "Our species has had a hard time drawing the line between us and them." Even the author, he has to admit, suffers this irrationality on occasion:

"I have carried out extensive animal primate research. ... The research frequently required carrying out major neurosurgical procedures, and in some instances, major efforts were necessary for their postoperative care. I found each one taxing and troubling."

Taxing and troubling. Poor man. Even he, a man of science, is susceptible to these irrational feelings of empathy. How silly of him to feel "pity" for a fellow primate - a completely healthy and innocent individual - that he has just performed brain surgery on for the purpose of furthering human knowledge. How misplaced that pity - how childish and impractical! Better wipe away those feelings lest we start finding it necessary to question our state of domination. But he can snap himself out of it. After all, the author jokes, "would I want to spend a lot of time with a chimp?"

I didn't read any further.