Most Helpful Customer Reviews
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A classic and actual book in the mind-body problem, September 4, 2010
This review is from: The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism (Paperback)
Popper does not need any presentation, nor any apologetics. I just pretend to say a few words about this impressive book under the prism of the current mind-body philosophy.
I asked to my professor of mind-body philosophy if I could study Popper, and he told me "no, no, he is too complicated with his 3 worlds theory". Instead, he wanted me to study Kim Jaegwon, the hey day mind-body philosopher. I did it, but Kim represents a very narrow philosophy, in my opinion. Finally, I went to Popper, and I feel like home. I tell you why. Excellent and plain prose, focusing on the central problems from the very beginning, and impressive understanding of vast regions of knowledge, Popper does not hesitate in emitting a judgment about a certain theory, a humanistic thought.
His opponents will say that is a personal book, somehow oldie, overcome by recent books. But I don't agree. You will find in Popper a sound critic of: materialism as the deafault position in mind-body philosophy; a very interesting critic to the identity theory; interesting thought and critics about philosophical reduction; why does not help to equate minds to computers; how we are to understand correctly perception; etc. All this critics are still very pertinent to current mind-body philosophy. Popper is all the time offering arguments: I don't like that argument because of that; I like it because of that; that's my argument in defence of my position, etc. (Compare it with the ugly and difficult prose of Kim, for instance, where you are to find arguments camouflaged in a vegetation of long dissertations on history and ontology, whatever this words my be.)
On the other hand, Popper offers also his positive solution, a very interesting one which, I believed, needs to be considered carefully and with sympathy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A FASCINATING INTERACTION BETWEEN A FAMOUS NEUROSCIENTIST AND A NOTED PHILOSOPHER, September 15, 2010
This review is from: The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism (Paperback)
John Eccles (1903-1997) was an Australian neurophysiologist who shared the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse. Karl Popper (1902-1994) was an Austro-British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics, and one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century.
They state in the Preface to this 1977 book, "The problem of the relation between our bodies and our minds, and especially of the link between brain structures and processes on the one hand and mental dispositions and events on the other is an exceedingly difficult one. Without pretending to be able to foresee future developments, both authors of this book think it improbable that the problem will ever be solved, in the sense that we shall really understand this relation. We think that no more can be expected than to hope to make a little progress here or there. We have written this book in the hope that we have been able to do so." They go on to state, "it may be well to mention at once one important difference between the authors: a difference in religious belief. One of us (Eccles) is a believer in God [he was Catholic] and the supernatural, while the other (Popper) may be described as an agnostic."
Here are some representative quotations from the book:
KP: "The most reasonable view seems to be that consciousness is an emergent property of animals arising under the pressure of natural selection (and therefore only after the evolution of a mechanism of reproduction)."
KP: "We know that, but we do not know HOW, mind and body interact; ... Nor do we know how mental events interact, unless we believe in a theory of mental events and their interaction which is almost certainly false: in associationism."
JE: "One of us---at 18 years old---had a sudden overwhelming experience. He wrote no account of it, but his life was changed because it aroused his intense interest in the brain-mind problem. As a consequence he has spent his life in the neural sciences with some continuing involvement in philosophy."
JE: "It can be claimed that the strong dualist-interactionist hypothesis that has been here developed has the recommendation of its great explanatory power. It gives in principle at least explanations of the whole range of problems relating to brain-mind interaction. It also aids in the understanding of some aspects of memory and illusion and creative imagination... But most importantly it restores to the human person the senses of wonder, of mystery and of value."
KP: "(A)s fas as parallelism CAN be achieved, we should try to get parallelism between mind and matter; only it breaks down somewhere, and interaction has to come in. Of course, we should at first operate with a kind of minimum interaction."
JE: "So I am constrained to believe that there is what we might call a supernatural origin of my unique self-conscious mind or my unique selfhood or soul; and that gives rise of course to a whole new set of problems... By this idea of a supernatural creation I escape from the incredible improbability that the uniqueness of my own self is genetically determined. There is the experienced self that requires this hypothesis of an independent origin of the self or soul, which is then associated with a brain, that becomes my brain. That is how the self comes to act as a self-conscious mind, working with the brain in all the ways that we have been discussing, receiving and giving to it and doing a marvellous integrating and driving and controlling job on the neural machinery of the brain."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
This book is still valuable when considering the body-mind problem!, June 20, 2011
This review is from: The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism (Paperback)
Obviously I do not have to mention the structure of this very old thick book first published in 1977. It seems that this book on the body-mind problem is already a classical one and almost fading out of the mind, or more appropriately, out of the brain, of current mainstream neuroscientists. The ideas of these dualist authors appear not favorable to the following authors, for example:
(1) Daniel Dennett in his book "Consciousness Explained (1991)" rejected the idea of Dualism from the start of his book based on the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy.
(2) In his book "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (1994)," Francis Crick cited this classical book only in the further reading list, saying: "I myself have little sympathy with either of their points of view. They would probably say the same of mine."
(3) No reference to this classical book in Antonio Damasio's recent two books of (1) Descartes' Error (1994), and (2) Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain (2010).
I would like to mention only one point which was discussed in the dialogs of the two authors (in Dialog X) in the last part of the book: Would the dualistic idea of theirs violate the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy?
In the history of physics there were times when the violation of the law was suspected by physicists. The examples cited by the authors are: (1) on the occasion of the discovery of electro-magnetism after the establishment of Newtonian mechanics, (2) in the process of radioactive beta-decay of nucleus before the discovery of neutron and the theoretical hypothesis of neutrino in the 1930s. These suspicions were eventually removed based on the development of novel physical theories.
Based on these historical facts and also referring to the physicist E.P. Wigner's idea, the philosopher Popper says "I think that this is only to say, in a different way, that physics is open to something as yet unknown." Popper's idea is that the physical dimension (World 1 in their terms) would be open to World 2 (the world of subjective experiences), though he never says that World 2 belongs to some non-physical dimensions. The two authors discussed further the interaction between Worlds 1 & 2, which might violate the law of conservation of energy, possibly in such a very minuscule amount as being difficult to detect.
Now, what I, just a curious reader of this book, wonder is that why all these scientists and philosophers do not mention the problem of "soul": does it have a physical weight, something like the amount 21 g? Or I should scientifically put it as follows: Is there really an unaccountable energy balance in the life-to-death transitions of human? If the 21 g (one of the reported four missing weights) is confirmed authentic, this means that the cherished law of conservation of energy is violated in the transition! I repeat the simple question: why don't they mention this problem? One may say that the experiment conducted by Dr. Duncan MacDougall published in 1907 is not any scientific experiment at all, but it was a scientifically uncontrolled sloppy one. Was it really so? Although physics Prof. Robert L. Park states in his book (Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science (2008)) to the effect that the missing weights are the result of MacDougall's wishful thinking and superstitious nonsense, no scientist has ever "scientifically" either refuted or confirmed the missing weights. Rather, recently a paper was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2010 Spring Issue (Vol. 24, No.1, pp. 5-39: Rebuttal to Claimed Refutations of Duncan MacDougall's Experiment on Human Weight Change at the Moment of Death. [This Vol.24/No.1 is on sale at amazon.com.]), which supports MacDougall's experiment being scientifically sound on a basis of theoretical simulations of the weighing experiment.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
