Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction 1st Edition

This is a review of _Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction_ by Susan Blackmore. I need to point that out because obviously the reviews for at least two of her other books are mixed in here.Author Susan Blackmore wrote the main textbook on Consciousness, so I expected this title to be a brief survey of all the various schools of thought on consciousness, looking at the subject broadly from the fields of Philosophy of Mind, Cognitive Science, and Neurobiology, the three disciplines that address consciousness in any major way. This book fails at being an introductory survey of Consciousness. This is Susan Blackmore's own personal view of the field.What Blackmore has written here is mainly a Philosophy of Mind book without much reference to Cognitive Science or Neurobiology. As such it was an interesting read but not particularly educational. She does discuss the problems with dualism and with Quantum Physics models of consciousness but relegates "opposing views" to hers to the Further Reading lists at the end of the book.This book is a paean to ideas Daniel Dennett espoused in his book _Consciousness Explained_, filtered through Blackmore's mindset of Eastern Mysticism, out of body experiences, and mind-altering hallucinogenic drug use. Coming at the consciousness field from that particular angle results in a distorted, narrow, circumscribed view of the overall field.Blackmore is preoccupied throughout this book with the same topics that preoccupied Dennett in his _Consciousness Explained_. For example a large part of this book is about memory blindness, filling in, and the non-existence of the Cartesian Theater. Dennett is only one figure associated with consciousness, and other expert views are in opposition to his, even among his fellow philosophers. Which is to say, the views of cognitive scientists and those of neurobiologists contrast even further with Dennett's model than do those of other philosophers. Yes Dennet has many followers and may be viewed by some as the preeminent authority on consciousness, but his high ranking in the field seems similar to the high ranking Noam Chomsky has had for decades in the linguistics field. Just as there are strongly elucidated competing models to Chomsky's Generative Grammar innate language model, so too there are strongly elucidated competing models to Dennett's Multiple Drafts consciousness model. And, like Chomsky's theory, Dennett's theory is the one garnering the most consensus among academics. A plurality of academics take Dennett's views as being the most acceptable ones. And, just as the popularity of Chomsky’s theory doesn’t make it the most accurate or useful one regarding language acquisition, soo too, The popularity of Dennet’s conjectures doesn't make them the most accurate or the most useful ones regarding consciousness.Blackmore does not discuss philosopher John Searle's Chinese Room. She mentions John Searle's book _The Mystery of Consciousness_ in her Further Reading list as an "opposing view." In her defense she mentions Libet's seminal free will experiments without attempting, as so many other writers do, to somehow magically negate Libet's conclusions just because it seems wrong to accept the reality that humans do not have free will. And at least she does mention Gerald Edelman's theory, Barnard Barrs' Global Workspace, and Quantum Physics models such as those of Roger Penrose. Their books are listed in the Recommended Reading at the end of her book.If a brief introduction to consciousness exists, written more recently than Searle's decades-old _The Mystery of Consciousness_, this book certainly is not it. This book's narrow focus is balanced by the Further Reading lists, which are where the reader will find all the other models, theories, and views of Consciousness other than the author's own.The Further Reading lists are the most valuable part of this book.

This is a nice little overview. The author summarizes the leading views of consciousness, self and free will and their advocates. She also discusses the problems with various views. Just keep in mind that it's intended to be a high-level summary.A few cautions - The author makes a few key assumptions without describing the rationale for them - such as that the world is "causally closed." The big bang would suggest that this is not the case and particle physics would suggest that we still haven't gotten our heads around this. also, though she may not be specifically advocating one view or another, she says things like "dualism appears hopeless" and the "bundle theory is hard to accept," which suggest that she is.While I don't agree with all of the points that she makes, this is definitely worth reading. Just see it for what the author intended and don't reach a lot of hard conclusions from it.

This is the best one that I’ve read so far. And I’ve read several within this series, including Nothing, Reality, and Magnetism. Ms. Blackmore does an excellent job of laying out the sticky problems, but it rarely feels like she’s rushing through it. Now, this one is a bit different because it is both an overview and an angle with a conclusion. However, you learn much along the way.Is it fair? I’m no expert, so I’ll have to trust that her quick dismissal of Dualism is warranted. Ms. Blackmore seems to pass over the problem of memory. If consciousness is an illusion and is caused by brain processes and environmental reactions, then memory seems to pose a problem. I can often pull out memories or think of things that have nothing to do with my environment (a purple horse!). And, if my thinking is due to brain processes, then what causes those?These Very Short Intro books pose a major challenge for most writers. With only 140 pages or so, the writer needs to hit the major concepts of the subject. But most of them tend to spread themselves too thin (see Nothing). Anyway, The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger appears to have much in common with Ms. Blackmore’s solution. I loved the ride, even if I am only about 75% with her. Something is still missing.

This is a clear and well written introduction to the concept of consciousness. Heavier on psychological and philosophical aspects than on neurobiology, but still a good intro packed into less than 200 pp. The book does not purport to deal with the mystical/spiritual aspects of the subject; it is written from a physicalist/materialist perspective, so its intended audience is the scientifically inclined reader.

At the beginning this book is fairly straightforward. It looks at the definitions of consciousness and theories of how it comes about. If you finished high school you probably have a general idea of it: it must be generated by some area of the brain and is behind many voluntary actions, such as movement, speech etc. If it was only that simple...As of now, there are no theories that try to explain how the movement of neurotransmitters across cells eventually materialize into the experience of being conscious. Philosophers and scientists have been arguing about it for ever, and we are no closer to the answer than decades ago. Susan Blackmore does a great job summarizing evidence and philosophical debates regarding consciousness.The conclusion at the end of the book was surprising and satisfying for me at the same time. It seem that the science getting the same idea that ancients figured out a while ago: consciousness - as the property of the self - is an illusion. It is nothing more than a bunch of constantly changing processes going on in the brain all the time. Do not be alarmed, there is nothing New Age in the book, it is based purely on science.If you are interested in the topic of consciousness - this is the right book to start from.

This little book is fascinating and profound by turns, helped by Susan Blackmore's sometimes wicked sense of humour, and Jolyon Troscianko's neat cartoons and diagrams.As an examination of the nature of consciousness and of the sense of the self, the issues raised by Blackmore's discussion of attention, neurophysiology and altered states of consciousness could hardly be of greater importance. A necessarily quick, but as far as I can judge surprisingly thorough, overview of the hard problem of consciousness, free will and its ethical correlates, and recent discoveries in neuroscience and artificial intelligence leads on to what is for me the core of the book, Blackmore's own conclusions about the implications of modifed consciousness, and the evolution of the experience of a self.I shall come back to this tremendous little text over and over again. Recommended!

Blackmore has admirable clarity in explaining complex ideas, and this gives this book merit in providing an intelligible summary of many of the concepts and arguments that have arisen in modern consciousness studies. However, there are shortcomings in her coverage of some important areas. Near the beginning of the book, she assumes a dismissive attitude to any connection between consciousness and decision making, which does not do justice to what recent neuroscience has to say about the brain's reward circuit. Her claim that only the dorsolateral prefrontal area, which is involved in executive planning and reasoning, has any impact on decision making looks questionable in the light of this research. Lengthy chapters in the middle of the book deal with the brain's processing of temporal sequences and lack of attention to much of the visual field, but ultimately this amounts to nothing more than saying that the brain provides a model or representation of the external world that is adaptive rather than particularly accurate or comprehensive. As such it says nothing about the origin or function of consciousness itself.In particular, the author promotes a very specific theory of consciousness, without giving readers of what is supposed to be a starter or introductory book, a proper view of the alternatives. The idea offered here is 'delusionism', the proposition that consciousness is a delusion. Many consciousness researchers consider that evolution would not have selected for consciousness if it had no purpose, but rather than properly discussing the reasons for rejecting this view, the author uses what is no more than a play on the word 'zombie' (important in some versions of consciousness studies), to avoid discussing this crucial topic. Lacking this, the 'delusional' project looks to fail, without offering readers much development of the alternatives.

I'll start with the good:Very interesting, refreshingly honest in its assessments of the challenge of studying consciousness a phenomenon, and the neuroscience was very interesting. However...This book was a worship piece to scientism, rather than truly scientific. It was riddled with contradiction to the point that "you" finish up having neither read nor experienced the book as you don't exist.Ironically the problem of explaining consciousness is subjectivity, and this book is much more the authors opinions than I'd bought it for

This is one of the most significant of the Very Shorts because it deals with that which without which everything else is inconceivable. And there you probably have it. I am currently re-reading it to find out the difference between me, a zombie and a robot. I think therefore I am. I am therefore I think. I am. I think. At least I think I am.

surprisingly no mention whatsoever of the psychoanalytic tradition, no mention of Freud, Lacan etc.. (but Buddhism gets a plug) Descartes gets a mention, but very little philosophical discussion around the nature/experience of being. Limits itself mainly to the field of psychology. Maybe a better title might have been “VS introduction to the study of consciousness in psychology”