- Amazon Business: Make the most of your Amazon Business account with exclusive tools and savings. Login now
- Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ Free Shipping
Follow the Author
OK
Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain Hardcover – November 15, 2011
|
Michael S. Gazzaniga
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
Are you an author?
Learn about Author Central
|
|
Price
|
New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry"
|
$0.00
|
Free with your Audible trial | |
|
MP3 CD, Audiobook, MP3 Audio, Unabridged
"Please retry"
|
$22.56 | $22.45 |
Enhance your purchase
-
Print length272 pages
-
LanguageEnglish
-
PublisherEcco
-
Publication dateNovember 15, 2011
-
Dimensions6 x 0.93 x 9 inches
-
ISBN-100061906107
-
ISBN-13978-0061906107
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
-
Apple
-
Android
-
Windows Phone
-
Android
|
Download to your computer
|
Kindle Cloud Reader
|
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the MindPaperback
Tales from Both Sides of the Brain: A Life in NeurosciencePaperback
Free Will [Deckle Edge]Paperback
No-Choice Theory: A Simplified Scientific Analysis of the Issues of Free Will and DeterminismAhmad Safavy PhDPaperback
The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain SciencePaperback
The Ethical Brain: The Science of Our Moral DilemmasPaperback
Customers who bought this item also bought
The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the MindHardcover
Tales from Both Sides of the Brain: A Life in NeuroscienceHardcover
Free Will [Deckle Edge]Paperback
Tales from Both Sides of the Brain: A Life in NeurosciencePaperback
Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We AreHardcover
The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us HumanHardcover
Special offers and product promotions
Editorial Reviews
Review
“This exciting, stimulating, and sometimes even funny book challenges us to think in new ways about that most mysterious part of us―the part that makes us think we’re us.” -- Alan Alda, actor and host of Scientific American Frontiers
“Gazzaniga is a towering figure in contemporary neurobiology. . . . Who’s in Charge? is a joy to read.” -- Wall Street Journal
“Terrific. . . . [An] engrossing study of the mechanics of thought.” -- Publishers Weekly
“From one of the world’s leading thinkers comes a thought-provoking book on how we think and how we act. . . . An exciting, stimulating, and at times even funny read that helps us further understand ourselves, our actions, and our world.” -- CNBC.com, Best Books for the Holidays
“[The] scope of Michael S. Gazzaniga’s Who’s in Charge? is huge―it tackles the age-old debate of free will [and] offers a lot to consider about what Gazzaniga deems the ‘scientific problem of the century.’” -- Portland Mercury
“An utterly captivating and fascinating read that addresses issues of consciousness and free will and, in the end, offers suggestions as to how these ideas may or may not inform legal matters.” -- Daily Texan
“A fascinating, accessible, and often humorous read for anyone with a brain! And a must-read for neuroscientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and criminal attorneys.” -- Library Journal (starred review)
“Fascinating. . . . Gazzaniga uses a lifetime of experience in neuroscientific research to argue that free will is alive and well.” -- Salon.com
“A fascinating affirmation of our essential humanity.” -- Kirkus Reviews
From the Back Cover
The father of cognitive neuroscience and author of Human offers a provocative argument against the common belief that our lives are wholly determined by physical processes and we are therefore not responsible for our actions
A powerful orthodoxy in the study of the brain has taken hold in recent years: Since physical laws govern the physical world and our own brains are part of that world, physical laws therefore govern our behavior and even our conscious selves. Free will is meaningless, goes the mantra; we live in a “determined” world.
Not so, argues the renowned neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga in this thoughtful, provocative book based on his Gifford Lectures——one of the foremost lecture series in the world dealing with religion, science, and philosophy. Who’s in Charge? proposes that the mind, which is somehow generated by the physical processes of the brain, “constrains” the brain just as cars are constrained by the traffic they create. Writing with what Steven Pinker has called “his trademark wit and lack of pretension,” Gazzaniga shows how determinism immeasurably weakens our views of human responsibility; it allows a murderer to argue, in effect, “It wasn’t me who did it——it was my brain.” Gazzaniga convincingly argues that even given the latest insights into the physical mechanisms of the mind, there is an undeniable human reality: We are responsible agents who should be held accountable for our actions, because responsibility is found in how people interact, not in brains.
An extraordinary book that ranges across neuroscience, psychology, ethics, and the law with a light touch but profound implications, Who’s in Charge? is a lasting contribution from one of the leading thinkers of our time.
About the Author
Michael S. Gazzaniga is internationally recognized in the field of neuroscience and a pioneer in cognitive research. He is the director of the SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is the author of many popular science books, including Who’s in Charge? (Ecco, 2011). He has six children and lives in California with his wife.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Product details
- Publisher : Ecco; First Edition (November 15, 2011)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 272 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0061906107
- ISBN-13 : 978-0061906107
- Item Weight : 1.05 pounds
- Dimensions : 6 x 0.93 x 9 inches
-
Best Sellers Rank:
#956,775 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #518 in Free Will & Determinism Philosophy
- #1,291 in Neuroscience (Books)
- #1,522 in Medical Neuropsychology
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
I’d highly recommend reading at least the first half of the book. The studies referenced throughout are fascinating. The second half also has interesting studies, but the context in which the studies are analyzed is confusing at best.
Gazzaniga reviews a lot of interesting and more-or-less relevant research from psychology and neuropsychology. In what follows I am giving my conclusions based on my interpretation of what Gazzaniga says. His train of his argument sometimes gets lost in the details.
Conscious mind is not the actor or agent in governing our behavior. Choices and behavior are controlled by non-conscious processes. Conscious thoughts and voluntary behavior are the result after the fact. Thus, the “you,” the “self,” is not just your conscious thoughts. “You” are the total system of conscious and unconscious mental processes, which are nothing more or less than the processes of the functioning brain. Thus, you cannot make the excuse that “my brain made me do it.” Your brain is you.
Gazzaniga argues, however, that our actions are not just the result of a causal chain that leads to an inevitable result. Mind is an emergent process of the brain, more than just the sum of its parts. And mind can exert downward control on the brain, thus intervening to produce actions different from what we would do if our behavior were merely the result of an inflexible causal chain. In other words, in everyday language, we can make choices. We can consider the facts (or what we believe to be the facts), and consider the possible consequences of alternative actions (as we can conceive of them), and make choices.
One cannot escape the conclusion that there is a large element of causality in human decision-making and behavior, but with so many interacting causes—plus a dose of uncertainty and chaos—the behavior of individuals cannot be reliably predicted. The best we can do is to make probabilistic predictions about the typical or average behavior of groups of people. While predictability implies determinism, the lack of predictability does not imply non- determinism or free will.
The most important practical application of the free will issue concerns attributing responsibility for criminal acts and other disapproved, antisocial behavior. Gazzaniga
discusses this issue in the penultimate chapter. If people have unconstrained free will then they are personally, individually responsible for their own actions, and it is right—in the traditional, conservative view—that they should be punished for their transgressive actions in proportion to the severity of the transgression. But if people's’ behavior is a result of multiple causes beyond their control then one might argue that they should not be punished as retribution, though they might be incarcerated to protect society from future transgressions. Here is where the responsibility of society comes in. The individual mind (a product of the functioning brain), with its knowledge and beliefs and behavior potentials, is a result of the interaction of the individual with their social and physical environment from the time of birth. (And even before birth, since the mother’s nutrition and health and drug use affect the fetus’s brain development.)
Society can do two types of things to influence the causes that probabilistically determine the likelihood that an individual will commit criminal behavior. (1). Society can try to improve social and environmental factors that affect individual behavior. This includes things ranging from childhood nutrition to education to safe neighborhoods to job opportunities, among others. I won’t go into detail on this topic since I want to focus on the next one, which is more relevant to Gazzaniga’s book.
(2). Society can ensure that people know that there will be consequences for their behavior. The anticipation of punishment is an effective cause for inhibiting criminal behavior for most people, most of the time. (And the degree of certainty about punishment is more important than the severity of punishment. Doubling the certainty of being caught and punished would do more to reduce crime than would doubling the length of jail sentences.) Gazzaniga argues that only in very rare cases is the legal defense of a defective brain or mental retardation justified. It doesn’t take much brain power to understand basic ideas of right and wrong and the possibility of punishment.
Though society is right to enforce negative consequences for criminal behavior, the rationale for punishment should not be retribution (“an eye for an eye”), but rather, deterrence of future criminal behavior. One way that punishment works as a deterrence—though imperfectly—is by giving others an example of the negative consequences of criminal behavior. (In this regard it might be useful to have more publicity on the unpleasantness of incarceration, with individual case examples.) More important, punishment by incarceration deters crime by removing the individual from society, thus eliminating the opportunity for further crimes against society for as long as the person is incarcerated. By emphasizing the purpose of incarceration punishment for protecting society, rather than proportional retribution, one can argue that in some cases of violent crimes the criminal should be kept in prison for the rest of their life, even if the crime was not murder. Experts cannot reliably predict which violent criminals will or will not commit more violence after they are released from prison. However, there is nothing in this argument that would justify a death sentence. Death sentences serve the old-fashioned idea of retaliation or retribution, but they are not necessary for preventing individuals from committing future crimes. Life in prison is more compatible with the humane idea of protecting society from violent criminals.
The author's views on free will can be briefly summarized by the following quotes: "YOU is your vastly parallel and distributed brain without a central command center. There is no ghost in the machine, no secret stuff that is YOU. That YOU that you are so proud of is a story woven together by your interpreter module to account for as much of your behavior as it can incorporate, and it denies or rationalizes the rest. Our left- brain interpreter’s narrative capability is one of the automatic processes, and it gives rise to the illusion of unity or purpose, which is a post hoc phenomenon." In other words, he believes that we falsely perceive being in conscious control, equates conscious control with free will, and since the perception of conscious control is false, free will does not exist. At least that is how I understand his argument, correct or not.
I believe there is more to free will than just the perception of conscious control, so the book does not, for me, deny free will. I believe the author does himself deny free will, but the case he makes in the book is only relative to a restricted version of free will.
For an excellent philosophical discussion of free will that follows up very closely on Who's in Charge, see Freedom Regained by Julian Baggini. Baggini even quotes Who's in Charge in his own book. To understand both the science and philosophy of free will, I highly recommend Who's in Charge followed by Freedom Regained.
Top reviews from other countries
He is on shakier ground when confronted with the age-old question of free will. We actually do not need such accurate information about where and when a specific trait or response happens to be to understand the simple fact that a brain is a physical entity and is, as such, subjected to the laws of physics. The finger that pulls the trigger of a gun and kills someone is activated by a neuronal network. Follow back the path from the neurons that directly contract the muscles all the way to the frontal cortex and you will never find a "free will" neuron that makes the decision. It really does not matter that at its most fundamental level (quantum mechanics), Nature is not deterministic, but random. This randomness is also at work inside the transistor in the device you are probably using to read this, and that does not make your device a free agent.
The author's quest to discredit reductionism is simplistic. He keeps on saying that you don't look at a car's mechanical parts to understand traffic patterns. That completely misses the point. That's called 'methodological reductionism' and is not embraced today by anyone. Modern reductionism does not attempt to do that. Rather, it concedes that epiphenomena can and should be studied and understood at its proper level. But that does not mean that emergent properties have causal links which are independent of the fundamental phenomena that explain them.
The author's foray into Physics to explain the concept of emergence is misguided. A macroscopic object, like a ball rolling down an inclined plane, is not an example of emergence from quantum mechanics. In fact, quantum mechanics cannot explain why the ball should roll down. This is hardly an example of an epiphenomenon, but simply reflects the well-known fact that quantum mechanics does not explain gravity (you need General Relativity for that).
If the author's point was to contribute something new to the question of free will, he has not succeeded.
But the journey itself is packed with so many interesting facts and descriptions about the science of the brain that I would still recommend it.

