What do you think?
Rate this book
Human. Quel che ci rende unici
Siamo davvero unici nel regno animale? Ed è unico il nostro cervello? Che cosa, nel corso dell'evoluzione, lo ha reso tale? Per oltre mezzo secolo le neuroscienze hanno cercato di spiegare la condizione umana individuando i processi psicologici e i meccanismi neurali che sottendono funzioni chiave quali la percezione, la memoria, le emozioni o il linguaggio. Quello che non hanno fatto è indagare la natura biologica, psicologica e sociale della specie umana nel quadro delle relazioni interpersonali che caratterizzano la nostra vita quotidiana. In questo volume Michael Gazzaniga affronta la sfida, guidandoci con stile chiaro e insieme rigoroso nella ricerca dei cambiamenti che ci hanno reso esseri senzienti e pensanti assai diversi dai nostri predecessori, capaci non solo di passare gran parte del tempo in società, confrontandoci con altri esseri umani e valutando le loro azioni e le loro intenzioni, ma anche di dar prova del nostro ingegno nella creazione artistica e nell'invenzione tecnico-scientifica.
569 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2008
315 people are currently reading
5646 people want to read
About the author
Michael S. Gazzaniga
77 books428 followersMichael S. Gazzaniga, one of the premiere doctors of neuroscience, was born on December 12, 1939 in Los Angeles. Educated at Dartmouth College and California Institute of Technology, he is a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he heads the new SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind.
His early research examined the subject of epileptics who had undergone surgery to control seizures. He has also studied Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients and reveals important findings in books such as Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind.
While many of his writings are technical, he also educates and stimulates readers with discussions about the fascinating and mysterious workings of the brain. Books such as The Social Brain and The Mind's Past bring forth new information and theories regarding how the brain functions, interacts, and responds with the body and the environment.
His early research examined the subject of epileptics who had undergone surgery to control seizures. He has also studied Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients and reveals important findings in books such as Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind.
While many of his writings are technical, he also educates and stimulates readers with discussions about the fascinating and mysterious workings of the brain. Books such as The Social Brain and The Mind's Past bring forth new information and theories regarding how the brain functions, interacts, and responds with the body and the environment.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
September 9, 2009
I have always enjoyed and benefited from Gazzaniga's works, both those written with Michael Sperry and those like Nature's Mind which he has done on his own. I fully expected to love this book as well, but it typifies all that is the worst in supposedly scientific exploration. What is good about this, and all his books, is that he presents studies that show where emotions, thinking, and language are localized in the human brain.
Because this book concerns itself specifically with the uniqueness of the human brain, he cites research showing what parts of the brain are activated when certain knowledge or emotions are elicited. This much is fine. However, his conclusion is always that since the human brain shows such activation, that means it is unique, that no other animal shows such activation. Unfortunately, he does not cite any research that shows that other animals' brains don't show localized arousal when stimulated by given tasks. He seems not to have heard of the ethological and cognitive studies of non-human animals despitee their timeliness and prevalence.
Moreover, he, with no justification whatsoever, makes blanket statements like "dogs feel sympathy but they don't feel pity." How does he or anyone else know this? Dogs don't have words to express emotions, but their body language, vocalizations and behavior do express their feelings and often their thought processes. Since these behaviors are consistent throughout dogdom, we can justifiably interpret certain behaviors as evincing certain feelings. Gazzaniga says that dogs don't feel guilt or shame. They act guilty only to avoid being punished. However, dogs display markedly different stances and eye contact when they are afraid, when they are trying to placate a human (as when a beaten dog crawls on its stomach, with tail and head lowered), and when they have been caught misbehaving.
I have even had dogs act as if they didn't do what they did do. One example, a dog of mine was forbidden to get on the sofa, but did when I was at work. When she heard my key in the lock, she jumped off the sofa, and crawled under it, so when I entered the room, she would be coming from underneath the sofa, yawning and stretching. Not only did I hear her jump, but she left fur on the sofa and the sofa cushion was still warm to my touch. If I then said, "What did you do?" she would adopt the guilty stance, curled body, head lowered, peering out from lowered eyes as she maintained eye contact and moved slowly in a semicircle in front of me. Those behaviors only occur when a dog has knowingly violated rules. Isn't that guilt? Couldn't it also be shame? If not, what is it? It never occurs under other circumstances, and all of my dogs have behaved the same way only when they got caught violating rules.
It is interesting that Gazzaniga lists a variety of disciplines concerned with brain functioning, but omits linguistics. Yet, linguists were pioneers in such studies since they were and are concerned with how the brain processes and produces language. My own work in schizophrenic speech (see my Understanding Psychotic Speech caused major changes in psychiatry because I showed that a dysfunction in brain processes, not Freudian constructs, were responsible for the specific language deviations characteristic of this population.
Had Gazzaniga acknowledged linguistics, as well as neurolinguistics, he would have had the definitive answer to the uniqueness of the human brain. Linguists have known for more than a century that what makes humans human is language (see Chapter 1 in my book Language the Social Mirror, 4th ed.. Note, I wrote "language," not "communication"
Language is the specific multilayered, rule-governed, context-bound system which allows all humans speaking in any language to produce a potentially infinite number of utterances, and to convey the past,present, future, the possible, the impossible, the invisible as well as the visible, the concrete as well as the abstract. Moreover, unlike animal communication and paralinguistic human communication, languages change when the environment changes. All languages also allow individuals to change language, such as Dylan Thomas's the sweethearting cribs or Shakespeare's But me no buts. Of course, if Gazzaniga had looked at linguistics or neurolinguistics, he wouldn't have had a book to write. He also wouldn't have been able to claim that all language resides in the left hemisphere, the refutation of which I will spare you.
What makes this book especially reprehensible is that Gazzaniga knows better. This is a poorly researched potboiler.
Because this book concerns itself specifically with the uniqueness of the human brain, he cites research showing what parts of the brain are activated when certain knowledge or emotions are elicited. This much is fine. However, his conclusion is always that since the human brain shows such activation, that means it is unique, that no other animal shows such activation. Unfortunately, he does not cite any research that shows that other animals' brains don't show localized arousal when stimulated by given tasks. He seems not to have heard of the ethological and cognitive studies of non-human animals despitee their timeliness and prevalence.
Moreover, he, with no justification whatsoever, makes blanket statements like "dogs feel sympathy but they don't feel pity." How does he or anyone else know this? Dogs don't have words to express emotions, but their body language, vocalizations and behavior do express their feelings and often their thought processes. Since these behaviors are consistent throughout dogdom, we can justifiably interpret certain behaviors as evincing certain feelings. Gazzaniga says that dogs don't feel guilt or shame. They act guilty only to avoid being punished. However, dogs display markedly different stances and eye contact when they are afraid, when they are trying to placate a human (as when a beaten dog crawls on its stomach, with tail and head lowered), and when they have been caught misbehaving.
I have even had dogs act as if they didn't do what they did do. One example, a dog of mine was forbidden to get on the sofa, but did when I was at work. When she heard my key in the lock, she jumped off the sofa, and crawled under it, so when I entered the room, she would be coming from underneath the sofa, yawning and stretching. Not only did I hear her jump, but she left fur on the sofa and the sofa cushion was still warm to my touch. If I then said, "What did you do?" she would adopt the guilty stance, curled body, head lowered, peering out from lowered eyes as she maintained eye contact and moved slowly in a semicircle in front of me. Those behaviors only occur when a dog has knowingly violated rules. Isn't that guilt? Couldn't it also be shame? If not, what is it? It never occurs under other circumstances, and all of my dogs have behaved the same way only when they got caught violating rules.
It is interesting that Gazzaniga lists a variety of disciplines concerned with brain functioning, but omits linguistics. Yet, linguists were pioneers in such studies since they were and are concerned with how the brain processes and produces language. My own work in schizophrenic speech (see my Understanding Psychotic Speech caused major changes in psychiatry because I showed that a dysfunction in brain processes, not Freudian constructs, were responsible for the specific language deviations characteristic of this population.
Had Gazzaniga acknowledged linguistics, as well as neurolinguistics, he would have had the definitive answer to the uniqueness of the human brain. Linguists have known for more than a century that what makes humans human is language (see Chapter 1 in my book Language the Social Mirror, 4th ed.. Note, I wrote "language," not "communication"
Language is the specific multilayered, rule-governed, context-bound system which allows all humans speaking in any language to produce a potentially infinite number of utterances, and to convey the past,present, future, the possible, the impossible, the invisible as well as the visible, the concrete as well as the abstract. Moreover, unlike animal communication and paralinguistic human communication, languages change when the environment changes. All languages also allow individuals to change language, such as Dylan Thomas's the sweethearting cribs or Shakespeare's But me no buts. Of course, if Gazzaniga had looked at linguistics or neurolinguistics, he wouldn't have had a book to write. He also wouldn't have been able to claim that all language resides in the left hemisphere, the refutation of which I will spare you.
What makes this book especially reprehensible is that Gazzaniga knows better. This is a poorly researched potboiler.
June 11, 2008
This is a brilliant overview of all the research work that has gone into deciding what makes human beings unique (if we are, but the evidence is strong that we are, among Earth's creatures).
It covers everything from the evolution of our social awareness and moral standards to the debate over whether intelligence must remain embodied -- that is, do you need a physical body to develop the kind of consciousness and intelligence that humans have? -- or whether it can be disassociated from the flesh and incorporated into a computer or robot of some type (the Ray Kurzweil approach).
It also explores what role the arts play in human life and where they may have come from, in an evolutionary adaptive sense, and looks at the raging debate over how consciousness arises (one leading theory today is that our sense of self-awareness actually emerges from several different modules of the brain that supply different parts of it).
Gazzaniga, director of the SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind at UC-Santa Barbara, is an erudite and occasionally funny writer who seems to have consulted every relevant study under the sun, and footnotes them extensively.
As someone who regularly produces story ideas for myself and the rest of my newspaper, I found that I filled several small notebook pages with possible articles from ideas in this book. Just two: At Meiji University, Tohru Suzuki and his colleagues are developing humanoid robots that imitate human actions they observe, record the facial and vocal emotions humans are expressing and imitate them as well and can even tell when a human points to an object what emotional salience he attaches to it; Malcolm Donald, a theoretical neuroscientist, believes our language and culture came from our evolving fine motor control, because that is what enabled us to produce gestures, which were the forerunners of language, which is the bedrock of culture. And on and on.
If you are looking for one book that gives you a cook's tour of the human brain, this would be an excellent choice.
In his conclusion, Gazzaniga writes: "Maybe those people who see humans as only slightly different from the rest of the animals are right. Just like other animals, we are constrained by our biology. We may not have the capacity to be any better than their worst appraisal. But the ability to wish or imagine that we can be better is notable. No other species aspires to be more than it is. Perhaps we can be. Sure, we may be only slightly different, but then, some ice is only one degree colder than liquid water. Ice and water are both constrained by their chemical composition, but they are very different because of a phase shift."
And humans, he persuasively argues, have undergone a phase shift from their nearest primate relatives -- and may do so again in the future.
It covers everything from the evolution of our social awareness and moral standards to the debate over whether intelligence must remain embodied -- that is, do you need a physical body to develop the kind of consciousness and intelligence that humans have? -- or whether it can be disassociated from the flesh and incorporated into a computer or robot of some type (the Ray Kurzweil approach).
It also explores what role the arts play in human life and where they may have come from, in an evolutionary adaptive sense, and looks at the raging debate over how consciousness arises (one leading theory today is that our sense of self-awareness actually emerges from several different modules of the brain that supply different parts of it).
Gazzaniga, director of the SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind at UC-Santa Barbara, is an erudite and occasionally funny writer who seems to have consulted every relevant study under the sun, and footnotes them extensively.
As someone who regularly produces story ideas for myself and the rest of my newspaper, I found that I filled several small notebook pages with possible articles from ideas in this book. Just two: At Meiji University, Tohru Suzuki and his colleagues are developing humanoid robots that imitate human actions they observe, record the facial and vocal emotions humans are expressing and imitate them as well and can even tell when a human points to an object what emotional salience he attaches to it; Malcolm Donald, a theoretical neuroscientist, believes our language and culture came from our evolving fine motor control, because that is what enabled us to produce gestures, which were the forerunners of language, which is the bedrock of culture. And on and on.
If you are looking for one book that gives you a cook's tour of the human brain, this would be an excellent choice.
In his conclusion, Gazzaniga writes: "Maybe those people who see humans as only slightly different from the rest of the animals are right. Just like other animals, we are constrained by our biology. We may not have the capacity to be any better than their worst appraisal. But the ability to wish or imagine that we can be better is notable. No other species aspires to be more than it is. Perhaps we can be. Sure, we may be only slightly different, but then, some ice is only one degree colder than liquid water. Ice and water are both constrained by their chemical composition, but they are very different because of a phase shift."
And humans, he persuasively argues, have undergone a phase shift from their nearest primate relatives -- and may do so again in the future.
May 9, 2016
I wrote this paper for a girl once (English was her second language and she wore nice pants, so I did her a favor). It was on the biochemical nature of love. I learned about the physical components and the evolutionary benefits of affection. It wasn’t particularly in depth, but it gave me an outline of the machinery behind what people feel. And it took some mystery out of the experience of love, gave it a cold name in science. This kind of discovery doesn’t diminish the sensation, but it does remove some of the mysticism surrounding it, the kind that I like to believe in. So there’s a question to ask here: How much to do you really want to know? Sometimes with knowledge comes banality.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson spoke in town the other day. He told a story about brilliant men in the history of science who could reach into their minds and illuminate the dark parts of the universe, could invent new fields of science to serve their quest for truth, and create understanding where there had been none. These same men would reach the limits of their knowledge, their capacity to understand, and at that edge of comprehension would intuit an explanation from the information available at the time. They would use metaphysics, alchemy, and a host of other suitable institutions to fill in the large gaps of their ignorance. And at each step, the fog of God would be pushed back a little further and a little further until the border of knowledge was reached, and the need for something to fill up the dark unknown emerged once again.
This book pulls back a little more of the shroud, breaks our so unique personalities into a set of tiny molecules linked together in a series of chains that have been selected for over time to increase reproductive success. That’s it. There’s amazing complexity in this process, enough to merit wonder and awe, but in the end, it’s a chunk of cells trading electrical signals in concert. And brains are lazy. It’s a lazy organ that will do as little work as possible to achieve the desired result. This makes analytical thinking a difficult and a seldom engaged in task. We’ll allow the first plausible explanation that comports with our understanding of the world to satisfy the question. This book appeals to me in that way. It supports what I suspected before I started reading it. It gives a factual foundation to what I already believed. It’s why I picked up the book in the first place. But I acknowledge that there are alternative explanations, other possibilities out there. And the book is far from complete, much of it is educated guesswork. Our understanding of the human brain is in its infancy, and there are still great mysteries left to explore. There were leaps forward where there might not have been, brain size increases and the advances in human progress that accompanied them. Why and how? Beats me. Here’s what you get instead:
The book contains a wealth of information.
Did you know that 30% of chimps die from aggression? Or how about that in the Middle Ages animals could be charged, appointed lawyers, and tried in court for the crime of buggery? (Guilty animals were put to death, pitchers and catchers). I took copious notes to refer back to later. It’s the kind of book you tell people about while you’re reading it, whether they’re interested or not. It’s not the final word on the issues it takes up, it’s just another prism to view the world through and hopefully expand your understanding of it.
I read the final chapter on Artificial Intelligence first. It was the most interesting topic to me at the outset, and it didn’t disappoint. I had such a fun time, I continued at the beginning and went from there. I might recommend that approach for you too. Using the sci-fi doorway to get interested before plugging on to the dryer stuff.
It took me months to get through the whole thing. It’s dense much of the time, and a good deal of it was over my head, but he adds a laymen’s explanation in each section, and he’s often funny. The whole of the book is fascinating, rich with facts, and approachable.
MP - If you want I'll send you my notes or call me for a verbal tour of its highlights.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson spoke in town the other day. He told a story about brilliant men in the history of science who could reach into their minds and illuminate the dark parts of the universe, could invent new fields of science to serve their quest for truth, and create understanding where there had been none. These same men would reach the limits of their knowledge, their capacity to understand, and at that edge of comprehension would intuit an explanation from the information available at the time. They would use metaphysics, alchemy, and a host of other suitable institutions to fill in the large gaps of their ignorance. And at each step, the fog of God would be pushed back a little further and a little further until the border of knowledge was reached, and the need for something to fill up the dark unknown emerged once again.
This book pulls back a little more of the shroud, breaks our so unique personalities into a set of tiny molecules linked together in a series of chains that have been selected for over time to increase reproductive success. That’s it. There’s amazing complexity in this process, enough to merit wonder and awe, but in the end, it’s a chunk of cells trading electrical signals in concert. And brains are lazy. It’s a lazy organ that will do as little work as possible to achieve the desired result. This makes analytical thinking a difficult and a seldom engaged in task. We’ll allow the first plausible explanation that comports with our understanding of the world to satisfy the question. This book appeals to me in that way. It supports what I suspected before I started reading it. It gives a factual foundation to what I already believed. It’s why I picked up the book in the first place. But I acknowledge that there are alternative explanations, other possibilities out there. And the book is far from complete, much of it is educated guesswork. Our understanding of the human brain is in its infancy, and there are still great mysteries left to explore. There were leaps forward where there might not have been, brain size increases and the advances in human progress that accompanied them. Why and how? Beats me. Here’s what you get instead:
The book contains a wealth of information.
Did you know that 30% of chimps die from aggression? Or how about that in the Middle Ages animals could be charged, appointed lawyers, and tried in court for the crime of buggery? (Guilty animals were put to death, pitchers and catchers). I took copious notes to refer back to later. It’s the kind of book you tell people about while you’re reading it, whether they’re interested or not. It’s not the final word on the issues it takes up, it’s just another prism to view the world through and hopefully expand your understanding of it.
I read the final chapter on Artificial Intelligence first. It was the most interesting topic to me at the outset, and it didn’t disappoint. I had such a fun time, I continued at the beginning and went from there. I might recommend that approach for you too. Using the sci-fi doorway to get interested before plugging on to the dryer stuff.
It took me months to get through the whole thing. It’s dense much of the time, and a good deal of it was over my head, but he adds a laymen’s explanation in each section, and he’s often funny. The whole of the book is fascinating, rich with facts, and approachable.
MP - If you want I'll send you my notes or call me for a verbal tour of its highlights.
June 25, 2011
Human by Michael S. Gazzaniga
Human is the fascinating book about what makes us uniquely human. Dr. Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist, uses his expertise in neuroscience and related fields to explain what makes human brains unique. This 464-page book is composed of the following four parts: 1. The Basics of Human Life, 2. Navigating the Social World, 3. The Glory of Being Human, and 4. Beyond Current Constraints.
Positives:
1. A very-accessible, enjoyable, educational and informative book.
2. This book is full of interesting research!
3. The wonderful theory of evolution once again provides the framework to understanding our brains.
4. How genetics has revolutionized neuroscience.
5. Accessible brain science from a renowned neuroscientist.
6. An investment of time that rewards you with "brain candy".
7. Dr. Gazzaniga not only explains what we know about our brains, he also discloses what we don't know.
8. Fascinating facts throughout, I can't stress that enough.
9. So what lead us to speak? Find out...
10. The "Theory of Mind".
11. Tracing our violent history.
12. Our animal instincts.
13. Group and sexual selection theories explained.
14. How food helped expand the human brain.
15. Gossip as evolutionary advantageous.
16. The impact of brain injuries...fascinating stuff!
17. Morality.
18. Voluntary and involuntary imitation.
19. Evolutionary theories about the origins of art.
20. Intuitive understanding of physics that innately human.
21. Fyborgs, yes fyborgs with an f!
22. Teleological reasoning.
23. Dr. Gazzaniga provides a comprehensive conclusion at the end of each chapter.
Negatives:
1. The book could have used more visuals to help convey concepts better.
2. Kindle links did not work.
In summary, this book is the science behind being human. It's as well-researched a book as you will find. Dr. Gazzaniga provides plenty of information and a luxury of details. Anyone interested in what makes us human with an emphasis on the brain should not hesitate to get this book. Fascinating stuff, I highly recommend it.
Recommendations: "The Belief Instinct..." by Jesse Bering, "Supersense" by Bruce M. Hood, "The Third Basic Instinct..." by Alex S. Key, "The Scientific American Brave New Brain..." by Judith Horstman, "The Blank State..." by Steven Pinker, and "The Ego Tunnel" by Thomas Metzinger
Human is the fascinating book about what makes us uniquely human. Dr. Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist, uses his expertise in neuroscience and related fields to explain what makes human brains unique. This 464-page book is composed of the following four parts: 1. The Basics of Human Life, 2. Navigating the Social World, 3. The Glory of Being Human, and 4. Beyond Current Constraints.
Positives:
1. A very-accessible, enjoyable, educational and informative book.
2. This book is full of interesting research!
3. The wonderful theory of evolution once again provides the framework to understanding our brains.
4. How genetics has revolutionized neuroscience.
5. Accessible brain science from a renowned neuroscientist.
6. An investment of time that rewards you with "brain candy".
7. Dr. Gazzaniga not only explains what we know about our brains, he also discloses what we don't know.
8. Fascinating facts throughout, I can't stress that enough.
9. So what lead us to speak? Find out...
10. The "Theory of Mind".
11. Tracing our violent history.
12. Our animal instincts.
13. Group and sexual selection theories explained.
14. How food helped expand the human brain.
15. Gossip as evolutionary advantageous.
16. The impact of brain injuries...fascinating stuff!
17. Morality.
18. Voluntary and involuntary imitation.
19. Evolutionary theories about the origins of art.
20. Intuitive understanding of physics that innately human.
21. Fyborgs, yes fyborgs with an f!
22. Teleological reasoning.
23. Dr. Gazzaniga provides a comprehensive conclusion at the end of each chapter.
Negatives:
1. The book could have used more visuals to help convey concepts better.
2. Kindle links did not work.
In summary, this book is the science behind being human. It's as well-researched a book as you will find. Dr. Gazzaniga provides plenty of information and a luxury of details. Anyone interested in what makes us human with an emphasis on the brain should not hesitate to get this book. Fascinating stuff, I highly recommend it.
Recommendations: "The Belief Instinct..." by Jesse Bering, "Supersense" by Bruce M. Hood, "The Third Basic Instinct..." by Alex S. Key, "The Scientific American Brave New Brain..." by Judith Horstman, "The Blank State..." by Steven Pinker, and "The Ego Tunnel" by Thomas Metzinger
January 8, 2010
Gazzanigia writes about how humans are unique. But as all animal species are unique, what he is really saying is that humans are special. What makes us special is mind and our capacity for self-consciousness and capacity to control our animal natures. In making his case, the author does a good job of surveying the various scientific studies that are well known.
The author's second chapter asks the question, "Would a chimp make a good date?" This is intended to make his point that there are obvious differences with the animal world, even from our closest relatives. But we know that. The more interesting proposition involves our similarities, not our differences. Darwin thought our differences were by degree, not kind. Many theorists today argue that our enormous intellectual capacity is an extension of the mental function that is seen in the animal world. Anything over and above that, such as the self consciousness so important to Gazzanigia, is a nice byproduct, but this is not our truest essence.
Like all all animals, we seek to live, we seek our well-being, we seek to defend ourselves, and we seek to be free. And maybe this desire to live and to live well is how we are fundamentally the equal of animals, and how all the other stuff about our specialness - what Gazzanigia calls "The Glory of Being Human" - is relatively superficial. As viewed from this perspective, maybe we would see our essential identification with all of life rather than our separateness from it. The author offers the reader a "religion of mankind" [not his words:], and says he's glad he's not a chimp. But, in his essence, he may be exactly that.
The author's second chapter asks the question, "Would a chimp make a good date?" This is intended to make his point that there are obvious differences with the animal world, even from our closest relatives. But we know that. The more interesting proposition involves our similarities, not our differences. Darwin thought our differences were by degree, not kind. Many theorists today argue that our enormous intellectual capacity is an extension of the mental function that is seen in the animal world. Anything over and above that, such as the self consciousness so important to Gazzanigia, is a nice byproduct, but this is not our truest essence.
Like all all animals, we seek to live, we seek our well-being, we seek to defend ourselves, and we seek to be free. And maybe this desire to live and to live well is how we are fundamentally the equal of animals, and how all the other stuff about our specialness - what Gazzanigia calls "The Glory of Being Human" - is relatively superficial. As viewed from this perspective, maybe we would see our essential identification with all of life rather than our separateness from it. The author offers the reader a "religion of mankind" [not his words:], and says he's glad he's not a chimp. But, in his essence, he may be exactly that.
May 22, 2011
I am not sure if the author fully addressed his thesis in this book. He asserts to help the reader understand the nature of his own consciousness and what sets us apart, in terms of brain function from other species. It reads somewhat like a psychology lecture, going through different aspects of brain function and what is known at the time. He compares us to a handful of other species. Most notably chimps. I guess the "magic" of being human was lost in the text. The things that we are able to accomplish in some ways were brought up, but it seemed as if he lost some of the humanness in the writing of it all. I mean the fact that we come up with ideas like quantum mechanics, is absolutely astounding. I liked the information provided, and was not necessarily disappointed with the book on the whole. I just felt like it still left the big question of how the hell did we develop such a complex consciousness in somewhere under 2 million years!? What could I have expected though? He did try to address evolutionary changes that are thought to have contributed to consciousness, I just was left feeling like, No that's no it! There is more! I don't know what but there is more to being human than this! Plus I kind of would have liked more comparisons. He hardly touched on what it would be like to think as a whale and there is a lot of research available on this topic. I think he could have expounded on these bits more. Anyway it was still a lot of good information.
August 14, 2013
There's a lot of good information crammed into this book. But that's sort of the problem, too. It all just feels kind of crammed together, lacking any appropriate cohesion. Gazzaniga will end each chapter by saying humans are/are not unique in regards to the topic at hand, sure, but there's still no feeling of continuity between the chapters. It's almost as if each chapter could just be its own separate little novella. Also, he's constantly trying to inject humor into almost every page, but it more often than not sounds completely strained, and so it grows tiresome. Nevertheless, there really is an incredible amount of research discussed here (with the caveat that much of it has already been disseminated into the popular literature and so can be found elsewhere).
March 30, 2023
What makes us humans, how much do we really differ (mostly in terms of mental processes) from other animals and how much are we really "special"?
Honest questions that find decent answers.
The author without without unnecessary popularization (although it's not a strictly scientific textbook) gives a satisfactory analysis of our human nature and our differences from other living organisms.
It may be a little difficult for the uninitiated in the relevant terminology and biology, but this does not affect the overall quality of the book, on the contrary it may motivate the reader to "dig deeper".
Honest questions that find decent answers.
The author without without unnecessary popularization (although it's not a strictly scientific textbook) gives a satisfactory analysis of our human nature and our differences from other living organisms.
It may be a little difficult for the uninitiated in the relevant terminology and biology, but this does not affect the overall quality of the book, on the contrary it may motivate the reader to "dig deeper".
April 11, 2013
Excellent stuff and quite appealing logic from it! Captivating!
June 29, 2016
the book's theme is 2what is humanity?"
Metacognition is important concept in neuroscience.
Metacognition is important concept in neuroscience.
Currently reading
March 1, 2022Just started this book, but already it is making me mad. (Note I am a retired psychologist.) His loudly and clearly stated thesis is that human beings are unique -- not just quantitatively but qualitatively different from anything that came before. He insists there is a bright sharp line between us and all the rest of the animal kingdom. We are not just unique, but special. That is a position usually taken by Creationists, but I don't know if that's where he is going with this.
It's OK, he's entitled to his opinion and to try to defend it. But he's not entitled to cheat to try to convince people. Example: he is talking about the relationship between brain size and intelligence. In general, bigger brain = bigger ideas, though he is aware that it is not a perfect correlation. But he argues that modern humans are a unique exception. Neanderthals had slightly bigger brains than us and even since we have been homo sapiens our brain size has declined a bit more. But "of course" homo sapiens are more intelligent than Neanderthals and contemporary humans are more intelligent than early versions of homo sapiens. This is clear, he says, just look at the complexity of the culture and social structures. That proves it.
Personally, I don't know if we are actually more intelligent than those Neanderthals who were busy inventing the control of fire and the use of tools. Yes, we are living in an incredibly technologically advanced society. That's because a long time ago, we invented ways to transmit knowledge down through the generations, so that we could keep building up the complexity of knowledge and technology. Does that make us more intelligent? How many of us actually understand how all this technology works? Talk to the average anti-vaxxer Trump cultist. They have no way to distinguish between fact and opinion and no way to evaluate different ideas. And are our little nuclear families really more complex social structures than existed in early tribal cultures? Read Tony Hillerman for examples of the complex and subtle web of clan relationships in Navajo culture. It seems quite possible to me ,that the 150 grams less of brain tissue contemporary humans have than earliest homo sapiens represents an actual decline in intelligence. We are losing IQ because we don't need it. We are coasting along on what was built before. We don't need to figure out how to get food, just go to the grocery. We don't need to know how to make anything, just buy it. We don't need to fight off wild animals because we have contained and destroyed them.
Any unused attribute tends to atrophy. One of those people on the street interviews asked people what they would do if they found out their child was a homo sapiens. Quite a few of them said something like they would disown them, kick them out. Very stupid on two levels. First to not know the difference between homo sapiens and homosexual. Second to disown your child for being homosexual.
That's just one example of his sophistry. Presumably he is not stupid, he just thinks his readers are. There is already another example. Still on the issue of brain size, he talks about "split brain" patients who have had their corpus callosum severed to help control epilepsy. The corpus callosum is the bundle of nerve fibers that connect right and left brain hemispheres. So he says see, the right hemisphere is turned off, the person functions just the same with half the brain size, so size has nothing to do with it. Wrong on so many levels.
Gazzaniga must be a very left brain thinker. He maligns and under estimates right brain: "The left hemisphere is the smart half of the brain. It speaks, thinks, and generates hypotheses. The right brain does not and is a poor symbolic cousin to the left." Can he recognize people's faces? Can he appreciate music, art, poetry? Can he understand connotations and emotional meanings of speech? Interpret body language? Understand things in a Gestalt big picture way? Control the left side of his body? All that and more is thanks to right brain. And because the c.c. is cut doesn't mean the right hemisphere died. It doesn't even mean all communication between the hemispheres is gone. Both the right and left cerebral cortex have lots of connections to the deep brain structures, thalamus, hypothalamus and many others. So the hemispheres are connected indirectly through the deep brain. And the disconnected right brain is not dead; it is just as active as before. And split brain patients are not cognitively just the same. I could spell all that out and add evidence. But probably no one but me will ever see this, so I won't.
All of this is in just the first 20 pages! And again, he really knows better. He is a neuropsychologist who studies split brain patients. So is he just so concerned about dumbing this down for the average reader and making it engaging to read that he doesn't worry if that makes it misleading? (Do those average readers really read books on neuropsychology, even dumbed down ones? And anyway remember we are smarter than Neanderthals, shouldn't have to dumb it down so much.). Or is he just so invested in proselytizing for his uniqueness thesis that he doesn't mind misleading people to convince them?
It's OK, he's entitled to his opinion and to try to defend it. But he's not entitled to cheat to try to convince people. Example: he is talking about the relationship between brain size and intelligence. In general, bigger brain = bigger ideas, though he is aware that it is not a perfect correlation. But he argues that modern humans are a unique exception. Neanderthals had slightly bigger brains than us and even since we have been homo sapiens our brain size has declined a bit more. But "of course" homo sapiens are more intelligent than Neanderthals and contemporary humans are more intelligent than early versions of homo sapiens. This is clear, he says, just look at the complexity of the culture and social structures. That proves it.
Personally, I don't know if we are actually more intelligent than those Neanderthals who were busy inventing the control of fire and the use of tools. Yes, we are living in an incredibly technologically advanced society. That's because a long time ago, we invented ways to transmit knowledge down through the generations, so that we could keep building up the complexity of knowledge and technology. Does that make us more intelligent? How many of us actually understand how all this technology works? Talk to the average anti-vaxxer Trump cultist. They have no way to distinguish between fact and opinion and no way to evaluate different ideas. And are our little nuclear families really more complex social structures than existed in early tribal cultures? Read Tony Hillerman for examples of the complex and subtle web of clan relationships in Navajo culture. It seems quite possible to me ,that the 150 grams less of brain tissue contemporary humans have than earliest homo sapiens represents an actual decline in intelligence. We are losing IQ because we don't need it. We are coasting along on what was built before. We don't need to figure out how to get food, just go to the grocery. We don't need to know how to make anything, just buy it. We don't need to fight off wild animals because we have contained and destroyed them.
Any unused attribute tends to atrophy. One of those people on the street interviews asked people what they would do if they found out their child was a homo sapiens. Quite a few of them said something like they would disown them, kick them out. Very stupid on two levels. First to not know the difference between homo sapiens and homosexual. Second to disown your child for being homosexual.
That's just one example of his sophistry. Presumably he is not stupid, he just thinks his readers are. There is already another example. Still on the issue of brain size, he talks about "split brain" patients who have had their corpus callosum severed to help control epilepsy. The corpus callosum is the bundle of nerve fibers that connect right and left brain hemispheres. So he says see, the right hemisphere is turned off, the person functions just the same with half the brain size, so size has nothing to do with it. Wrong on so many levels.
Gazzaniga must be a very left brain thinker. He maligns and under estimates right brain: "The left hemisphere is the smart half of the brain. It speaks, thinks, and generates hypotheses. The right brain does not and is a poor symbolic cousin to the left." Can he recognize people's faces? Can he appreciate music, art, poetry? Can he understand connotations and emotional meanings of speech? Interpret body language? Understand things in a Gestalt big picture way? Control the left side of his body? All that and more is thanks to right brain. And because the c.c. is cut doesn't mean the right hemisphere died. It doesn't even mean all communication between the hemispheres is gone. Both the right and left cerebral cortex have lots of connections to the deep brain structures, thalamus, hypothalamus and many others. So the hemispheres are connected indirectly through the deep brain. And the disconnected right brain is not dead; it is just as active as before. And split brain patients are not cognitively just the same. I could spell all that out and add evidence. But probably no one but me will ever see this, so I won't.
All of this is in just the first 20 pages! And again, he really knows better. He is a neuropsychologist who studies split brain patients. So is he just so concerned about dumbing this down for the average reader and making it engaging to read that he doesn't worry if that makes it misleading? (Do those average readers really read books on neuropsychology, even dumbed down ones? And anyway remember we are smarter than Neanderthals, shouldn't have to dumb it down so much.). Or is he just so invested in proselytizing for his uniqueness thesis that he doesn't mind misleading people to convince them?
January 25, 2020
Well, this book surprised me in multiple ways. I wanted to learn in a nonformal way about the human brain, the processes that make us who we are, and all the mechanisms that help live our daily lives.
It turned out to be quite the big brain book, not in the way that is was difficult to understand but more in a way that it was difficult to cope with all the knowledge inside. The book is packed with quality content, ranging from humoristic comments about chimps making a good date to multiple studies and experiments that show why not.
Overall I liked the book and it gave me what I was looking for, a sense that even though we are becoming more and more illuminated with the help of our current lifestyle, we still have a lot more to go until we figure ourselves out.
It turned out to be quite the big brain book, not in the way that is was difficult to understand but more in a way that it was difficult to cope with all the knowledge inside. The book is packed with quality content, ranging from humoristic comments about chimps making a good date to multiple studies and experiments that show why not.
Overall I liked the book and it gave me what I was looking for, a sense that even though we are becoming more and more illuminated with the help of our current lifestyle, we still have a lot more to go until we figure ourselves out.
May 25, 2018
Humans will sit behind a computer and try to figure out the meaning of life. Animals live life. the question is who is better off, the human or the animal?
March 1, 2021
It is fascinated. I think i will write a long detailed review later.
July 26, 2016
Determined this year to read and learn from more non-fiction works, I picked this book up as it blended evolutionary biology and behavioural psychology which I was interested in.
Its prologue was succinct and stuffed full of interesting facts (such as the discovery that rats have metacognition). Throughout, Gazzaniga asserted his view very clearly: that although humans and animals share many similarities we are not the same, as our abilities are on a completely different scale and league to those even of chimps.
Through his writing Gazzaniga's distinctive personality can easily be seen in the form of his shining wittiness colouring the pages. One of my favourite quotes from this book illustrates this quite well, when questioning whether big brains are the cause of why we are unique - "If you think the answer is going to be found in the beginning of the first chapter, you are not using that big brain of yours" (pg. 16).
In addition, he really tried (and mostly succeeded) to appeal to readers new to this area of science and professional specialists alike. Caught in the middle, I appreciated the fine balance Gazzaniga struck between heavy explanations of every specialist term and the other extreme of breezing through expecting readers to understand him fully. He does this by using explanations that most people would easily understand, such as the example of catching a fugitive to illustrate how communication works in the brain's prefrontal cortex. Gazzaniga literally explains all the terms uncommon in non-scientific books, such as module in the context of neurology. One of my favourite explanations has to be of pyramidal cells (a type of neuron) in the cerebral cortex, where he uses the rather unconventional visual example of Hershey's Kisses to help readers understand how the cells fit together in columns in the brain. I actually brought Human back home over Easter, and my dad picked it up to take a look, scanned the first few pages, and was so captivated that after I left he began reading the Chinese translated version of this book, and finished it even before I did, moving on next to The Ethical Brain: The Science of Our Moral Dilemmas, also by Gazzaniga. A handy index at the back was also very convenient.
His concise definitions ensure that his writing stays focused, that it does not suddenly veer off on a tangent; therefore keeping his argument strong. If there is one thing my history teachers have taught me about writing argumentative essays, it is to never ever talk about anything unrelated to the core argument, as it disperses the impact of your words and decreases the 'punchiness' of the final conclusion.
I did find that it was a tough book to read, but it was also funny and interesting. Though I don't study neuroscience or behavioural psychology in class, the areas where it touched upon human evolution and the arguments surrounding Homo sapiens as the unique outcome from this process, helped deepen and flesh out my understanding of evolutionary biology. After reading this book, even in the shower when I think of behaviours certain people exhibit, such as checking mucus in their tissues after blowing their noses, I keep feeling that they are inextricably linked to evolution and natural selection, as this behaviour could very well have lingered due to mucus colour being a possible sign of whether a sinus infection is present. (I apologise for that gross example.)
Basically - good book.
August 15, 2015
This book is quite good. It describes recent (circa 2008) developments in neurology, neuroscience, anthropology and other fields of interest to describe the differences between people and animals. It tries to answer the question of what makes human beings unique. Michael S. Gazzaniga describes most of the current theories and either tears them apart or supports them with evidence. Of course, this book is a bit old and neuroscience is pretty far on the edge of new science, so it is probably already dated in most cases.
In any case, it was well written and engaging. The book also discusses robot butlers and advanced AI, glancing over the requirements for such a device and what would be required to compute such a massive subject. For instance, recognizing faces is a Holy Grail of sorts. A human brain is specifically built to recognize faces and can probably recognize thousands in all sorts of poses and positions. Most faces can be recognized in a few seconds or less; computers would take many times longer and must recalculate each time the face shifts position. Although computers have bested humans in some things, they probably won't be able to do everything that we can do anytime soon. When Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov it was not aware of the history of chess, or anything other than pure calculation. It was a machine specifically designed to do one thing and one thing only. Meanwhile, Garry Kasparov can appreciate sunsets and cook ramen noodles, and beat me at chess. Not that beating me in chess is a great accomplishment.
Also up there is the idea of downloading your consciousness into a robot body and living forever, DNA manipulation and other things that are so far out there, they become the stuff of science fiction.
I would certainly read this book again. Perhaps I should read some articles about this subject. I am sure they advanced even further.
In any case, it was well written and engaging. The book also discusses robot butlers and advanced AI, glancing over the requirements for such a device and what would be required to compute such a massive subject. For instance, recognizing faces is a Holy Grail of sorts. A human brain is specifically built to recognize faces and can probably recognize thousands in all sorts of poses and positions. Most faces can be recognized in a few seconds or less; computers would take many times longer and must recalculate each time the face shifts position. Although computers have bested humans in some things, they probably won't be able to do everything that we can do anytime soon. When Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov it was not aware of the history of chess, or anything other than pure calculation. It was a machine specifically designed to do one thing and one thing only. Meanwhile, Garry Kasparov can appreciate sunsets and cook ramen noodles, and beat me at chess. Not that beating me in chess is a great accomplishment.
Also up there is the idea of downloading your consciousness into a robot body and living forever, DNA manipulation and other things that are so far out there, they become the stuff of science fiction.
I would certainly read this book again. Perhaps I should read some articles about this subject. I am sure they advanced even further.
January 25, 2013
I find Gazzaniga a very engaging writer, even in textbook, and this volume is no exception. As the title states, what Gazzaniga is after is precisely what is that makes our special kind of primate human. Answering this question is by no means trivial, of course, and you need to know a lot about animals to navigate among what characteristics are uniquely human: is it empathy? or possessing a theory of mind? or is it enjoying art?
Gazzaniga goes over this skilfully and pleasantly - the only aspect which tempered my enjoyment somewhat is the attempt to explain how behaviours link to brain structure and function: here I think he does not succeed as he does in Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology Of The Mind, as of course he does not have the space, and he decides not to go for pictures, so that in the end this is lost on the reader (or at least on this reader :-) ) - which was frustrating for me, as I could see the various elements would construct a clearer picture if only I could understand the biology of the brain better, whereas for me these elements remained a collection of very interesting but somewhat disconnected experimental results. Nevertheless, a very enjoyable and instructive read.
Gazzaniga goes over this skilfully and pleasantly - the only aspect which tempered my enjoyment somewhat is the attempt to explain how behaviours link to brain structure and function: here I think he does not succeed as he does in Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology Of The Mind, as of course he does not have the space, and he decides not to go for pictures, so that in the end this is lost on the reader (or at least on this reader :-) ) - which was frustrating for me, as I could see the various elements would construct a clearer picture if only I could understand the biology of the brain better, whereas for me these elements remained a collection of very interesting but somewhat disconnected experimental results. Nevertheless, a very enjoyable and instructive read.
November 23, 2014
If you read a lot of cognitive science, you see Gazzaniga's name all over the place, but this is the first of his books that I've read, and it's flat-out wonderful.
I learned a ton of interesting stuff about the brain, but the book is about more than just intelligence. Theory of mind, ethics, language and more are explored, and all in a very accessible style. Gazzaniga often explains things by giving voice to brain structures and other inanimate objects. I was thoroughly engaged by the whole book, and utterly impressed by how good the writing is. If only more academics could write the way real people talk, without dumbing down the content at all.
This was on my "to-read" list for a long time, but I was almost afraid to get around to actually reading it, because I thought it might be a dense, challenging toughie. I'm so glad I finally read it, and wish I would have known what a joy it was going to be to read.
I learned a ton of interesting stuff about the brain, but the book is about more than just intelligence. Theory of mind, ethics, language and more are explored, and all in a very accessible style. Gazzaniga often explains things by giving voice to brain structures and other inanimate objects. I was thoroughly engaged by the whole book, and utterly impressed by how good the writing is. If only more academics could write the way real people talk, without dumbing down the content at all.
This was on my "to-read" list for a long time, but I was almost afraid to get around to actually reading it, because I thought it might be a dense, challenging toughie. I'm so glad I finally read it, and wish I would have known what a joy it was going to be to read.
July 3, 2015
There's a lot happened in cognitive neuroscience since I studied it 25 years ago. Gazzaniga's style may not be for everyone (judging from other reviews it's not), but it certainly works for me. He's got a nice mix of expertise and informality as he explains both what is known and what is speculated about and what this might mean for humanity's future. The most powerful take-away for me was a reminder of just how much of the clever functioning of the brain happens outside our conscious control. Or to put this another way, how illusory is much of my sense of a conscious self who controls my identity and actions. My copy is now full of notes and I know I will be back to it again and again.
November 26, 2008
i thought i already wrote a review for this but i guess not.
i really enjoyed this book - it's a science book but not too science-y so you don't have to put it down every few pages for a comic book break.
gazzaniga talks about how we are who were are compared to animals and explains things like gossip, in group/out group behavior, and doing each other favors with evolution.
good read! if you're feeling like a smarty pants.
i really enjoyed this book - it's a science book but not too science-y so you don't have to put it down every few pages for a comic book break.
gazzaniga talks about how we are who were are compared to animals and explains things like gossip, in group/out group behavior, and doing each other favors with evolution.
good read! if you're feeling like a smarty pants.
August 31, 2015
Definitely one of the most readable and informative books on neuroscience I've read,so far.The author draws together the findings of many researchers in the field and presents their core theories in a lively and accessible manner.If you haven't the time or inclination to read Damasio,Pinker or a host of other popular authors then this is the one to read.
November 25, 2008
Heard about this book an interview with the author on NPR. Piqued my curiosity.
Read
April 1, 2025Book Review: Human: The Science Behind What Makes Your Brain Unique by Michael S. Gazzaniga
In Human: The Science Behind What Makes Your Brain Unique, Michael S. Gazzaniga, a distinguished cognitive neuroscientist, explores the intricate workings of the human brain and the unique cognitive capabilities that differentiate humans from other species. Published in 2008, the book synthesizes insights from neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy to illuminate the factors that contribute to human uniqueness, with a particular focus on the brain’s structure and function.
Structure and Content
The book is organized into accessible chapters that progressively build upon each other, leading readers through Gazzaniga’s exploration of human cognition. He begins by addressing the evolutionary background of the human brain and its development over millennia. Gazzaniga introduces key concepts such as lateralization—how different brain hemispheres specialize in various functions—and the implications of these differences for understanding human thought and behavior.
Throughout the book, Gazzaniga discusses various cognitive modules that he proposes as essential components of what makes the human mind distinct. He articulates the significance of language, social cognition, and moral reasoning, providing readers with a comprehensive view of the psychological and neurological underpinnings of these human traits.
Key Themes
Several key themes emerge in Gazzaniga’s work:
Neuroplasticity and Adaptation: Gazzaniga emphasizes the brain’s remarkable ability to adapt and reorganize itself in response to experiences and environmental challenges, highlighting how this flexibility is crucial for learning and development.
The Role of Language: A significant portion of the book is dedicated to exploring how language shapes human thought and social interaction. Gazzaniga discusses the neurological basis of language and its profound impact on our ability to communicate and form complex societies.
Moral and Ethical Reasoning: The author delves into the neurological basis of morality, presenting evidence for how our brains process ethical dilemmas and the implications this has for understanding human behavior and societal norms.
Social Cognition: Gazzaniga explores how humans navigate social relationships, focusing on the cognitive processes that enable empathy, cooperation, and the understanding of others’ intentions.
Interdisciplinary Approach: The integration of neuroscience with psychology and philosophy underscores the complexity of the human mind. Gazzaniga argues for a holistic understanding of cognition that transcends disciplinary boundaries.
Educational Value
Human: The Science Behind What Makes Your Brain Unique serves as an invaluable resource for both academic and general audiences interested in cognitive science. Gazzaniga’s ability to articulate complex ideas in an engaging and understandable manner makes the book approachable for readers who may not have a strong background in neuroscience. The book encourages critical thinking about the nature of human cognition and the factors that contribute to our unique mental capabilities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Michael S. Gazzaniga’s Human: The Science Behind What Makes Your Brain Unique is an insightful and engaging exploration of the human brain and its exceptional capacities. Through a combination of scientific rigor and accessible writing, Gazzaniga successfully conveys the intricacies of cognitive neuroscience while inviting readers to reflect on the very nature of what it means to be human. This book is highly recommended for students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the scientific foundations of human cognition and the unique attributes that define our species.
In Human: The Science Behind What Makes Your Brain Unique, Michael S. Gazzaniga, a distinguished cognitive neuroscientist, explores the intricate workings of the human brain and the unique cognitive capabilities that differentiate humans from other species. Published in 2008, the book synthesizes insights from neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy to illuminate the factors that contribute to human uniqueness, with a particular focus on the brain’s structure and function.
Structure and Content
The book is organized into accessible chapters that progressively build upon each other, leading readers through Gazzaniga’s exploration of human cognition. He begins by addressing the evolutionary background of the human brain and its development over millennia. Gazzaniga introduces key concepts such as lateralization—how different brain hemispheres specialize in various functions—and the implications of these differences for understanding human thought and behavior.
Throughout the book, Gazzaniga discusses various cognitive modules that he proposes as essential components of what makes the human mind distinct. He articulates the significance of language, social cognition, and moral reasoning, providing readers with a comprehensive view of the psychological and neurological underpinnings of these human traits.
Key Themes
Several key themes emerge in Gazzaniga’s work:
Neuroplasticity and Adaptation: Gazzaniga emphasizes the brain’s remarkable ability to adapt and reorganize itself in response to experiences and environmental challenges, highlighting how this flexibility is crucial for learning and development.
The Role of Language: A significant portion of the book is dedicated to exploring how language shapes human thought and social interaction. Gazzaniga discusses the neurological basis of language and its profound impact on our ability to communicate and form complex societies.
Moral and Ethical Reasoning: The author delves into the neurological basis of morality, presenting evidence for how our brains process ethical dilemmas and the implications this has for understanding human behavior and societal norms.
Social Cognition: Gazzaniga explores how humans navigate social relationships, focusing on the cognitive processes that enable empathy, cooperation, and the understanding of others’ intentions.
Interdisciplinary Approach: The integration of neuroscience with psychology and philosophy underscores the complexity of the human mind. Gazzaniga argues for a holistic understanding of cognition that transcends disciplinary boundaries.
Educational Value
Human: The Science Behind What Makes Your Brain Unique serves as an invaluable resource for both academic and general audiences interested in cognitive science. Gazzaniga’s ability to articulate complex ideas in an engaging and understandable manner makes the book approachable for readers who may not have a strong background in neuroscience. The book encourages critical thinking about the nature of human cognition and the factors that contribute to our unique mental capabilities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Michael S. Gazzaniga’s Human: The Science Behind What Makes Your Brain Unique is an insightful and engaging exploration of the human brain and its exceptional capacities. Through a combination of scientific rigor and accessible writing, Gazzaniga successfully conveys the intricacies of cognitive neuroscience while inviting readers to reflect on the very nature of what it means to be human. This book is highly recommended for students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the scientific foundations of human cognition and the unique attributes that define our species.
June 3, 2025
Dobra książka, porównywalna do pisarstwa Sapolsky'ego, może tylko troszkę gorsza ;) Podobny temat, również wciągająco, interesująco napisana. Również ze szczyptą humoru (choć troszeczkę mniejszą). Kolejna książka o mózgu i znowu trochę inna. Powtarzające się w książkach przypadki podjęte z trochę innej strony (i to jest fascynujące). Przyczynia się do rozwiązania zagadki dlaczego jesteśmy ludźmi, dlaczego zaszliśmy trochę dalej niż zwierzęta itp. I właściwie nie wiem co mogę jeszcze o niej powiedzieć - jest to dużo treści ale ciężko ją przywołać z pamięci ;) Tak czy inaczej książkę polecam, to jedna z tych lepszych :)
Przy okazji niektórych cytatów jeszcze coś dodam:
- taki mały przykład humoru ;)
Ad.str.173 i opisany tam eksperyment moralny: Dobra, przyznaję - też bym sobie przydzielił atrakcyjniejsze zadanie, ale wcześniej też rzuciłbym monetą (i przydzielił je sobie bez względu na wynik) :D Tak myślę przynajmniej ;)
- to ciekawe spostrzeżenie, o którym nie myślałem! Ale ma to sens. Ale ludzie też są różni, ja właśnie mam tendencję do sprawiedliwych ocen :P (co też może być wadą w tym kontekście). W mniej-więcej tym samym miejscu książki jest też o roli plotki (jako regulatora), noo mnóstwo ciekawych informacji!
- mamy proste rozwiązanie kwestii "nieczystości", teraz wydaje mi się tak proste, że aż wstyd, że sam na to nie wpadłem :P Jak najbardziej to też ma sens.
- kolejny powód dla którego nie jestem zbyt lubiany :P (jak i pewnie inni nienaurotypowi...).
- oto jak prawdopodobnie człowiek wymyślił Boga ;) Ale fajnie by było gdyby naprawdę to wszystko miało jakiś głębszy cel ;)
(czytana/słuchana: 8-20.05.2025)
5/5 [7/10]
Przy okazji niektórych cytatów jeszcze coś dodam:
"Czy możesz sobie wyobrazić świat, w którym nikt nie kłamie? To byłoby straszne. Czy naprawdę chciałbyś znać odpowiedź na pytanie: "Cześć, jak się dzisiaj czujesz?", albo usłyszeć: "Zauważyłam, że te dwa kilogramy, których ci ostatnio przybyło, poszły ci w podbródek"?"
(pdf. str.166)
- taki mały przykład humoru ;)
Ad.str.173 i opisany tam eksperyment moralny: Dobra, przyznaję - też bym sobie przydzielił atrakcyjniejsze zadanie, ale wcześniej też rzuciłbym monetą (i przydzielił je sobie bez względu na wynik) :D Tak myślę przynajmniej ;)
"Przyglądając się środowisku, w jakim ewoluowali nasi przodkowie, Haidt zwraca uwagę na fakt, że gdyby nasze mechanizmy formułowania sądów moralnych były skonstruowane w taki sposób, aby zawsze dokonywać trafnych ocen, pociągałoby to za sobą katastrofalne skutki, ponieważ w pewnych sytuacjach bralibyśmy stronę naszych wrogów, występując przeciwko przyjaciołom i rodzinie."
(pdf.str.235)
- to ciekawe spostrzeżenie, o którym nie myślałem! Ale ma to sens. Ale ludzie też są różni, ja właśnie mam tendencję do sprawiedliwych ocen :P (co też może być wadą w tym kontekście). W mniej-więcej tym samym miejscu książki jest też o roli plotki (jako regulatora), noo mnóstwo ciekawych informacji!
"Czystość
Przekonanie, że "nieskażone jedzenie jest dobre", doprowadziło do powstania wielu religijnych rytuałów i zakazów dotyczących jedzenia. Intuicyjne przekonanie, że
"nieskażone ciało jest dobre", przyczyniło się do tego, iż pewne praktyki seksualne albo sam seks są uważane za nieprzyzwoite i nieczyste."
(pdf.str.251)
- mamy proste rozwiązanie kwestii "nieczystości", teraz wydaje mi się tak proste, że aż wstyd, że sam na to nie wpadłem :P Jak najbardziej to też ma sens.
"Interakcje z osobami, które wyrażają niewiele pozytywnych emocji i nie reagują na sygnały emocjonalne, prowadzą do wzrostu aktywności sercowo-naczyniowej u ich partnerów społecznych. Jeśli więc spędzasz czas w towarzystwie kogoś, kto tłumi swoją ekspresję emocjonalną, to zachowanie tej osoby podnosi ciśnienie nie tylko jej samej, ale także Tobie."
(pdf. str. 307)
- kolejny powód dla którego nie jestem zbyt lubiany :P (jak i pewnie inni nienaurotypowi...).
"Nadaktywny podsystem detektywistyczny w połączeniu z naszą potrzebą wyjaśniania i skłonnością do myślenia teleologicznego stanowi podstawę kreacjonizmu. Próbując wyjaśnić, dlaczego istniejemy, nasz nadaktywny podsystem detektywistyczny zakłada, że musi być w to zamieszany jakiś "Ktoś".
Myślenie teleologiczne podpowiada nam, że za naszym istnieniem musi się kryć czyjś celowy zamysł, a poszukiwaną przyczyną są pragnienia, zamiary i zachowania tego Kogoś. Innymi słowy, zostaliśmy celowo zaprojektowani przez jakąś Istotę."
(pdf.str.434-435)
- oto jak prawdopodobnie człowiek wymyślił Boga ;) Ale fajnie by było gdyby naprawdę to wszystko miało jakiś głębszy cel ;)
(czytana/słuchana: 8-20.05.2025)
5/5 [7/10]
January 4, 2020
Człowiek - to brzmi dumnie. Ile z tego powiedzenia ma podstawy w nauce?
Książek, które sięgają głęboko do sedna pytań o istotę bycia człowiekiem, o stopień jego wyjątkowości, o podobieństwa z innymi gatunkami na poziomie pracy mózgu, nie mamy dużo po polsku. Większość jest poradnikami psycho-socjologii, które certyfikatu uczoności poszukują w przytaczaniu wyrwanych z kontekstu badań, a często pozostają banalne we wtórności. Na szczęcie książka "Istota człowieczeństwa. Co sprawia że jesteśmy wyjątkowi" to solidny kawał cennej wiedzy deklasującej niemal wszystko, co jest dostępne na naszym rodzimym rynku wydawniczym w segmencie prac o człowieku.
Neuropsycholog Michael Gazzaniga zabrał mnie we wspaniałą intelektualną przygodę z człowiekiem, jako obiektem dociekań biologicznych, psychologicznych i socjologicznych. Pokazał wielobarwny świat naszych doświadczeń, potrzeb i motywacji. Opisał, w jaki sposób staliśmy się świadomi własnego 'JA', jako gatunek, jak kształtujemy nasze otoczenie i przypisujemy sprawstwo analizowanym fenomenom rzeczywistości. Autor prowadzi za rękę czytelnika przez kluczowe komponenty mózgu, by następnie pokazać konsekwencje tak wyewoluowanego narządu. Dziedziczymy po przodkach niskopoziomowe i nieświadomie realizowane zadania do przetrwania i jednocześnie doprowadziliśmy ten 'galaretowaty twór' do kreatywnej rozbudowy w korowe struktury. Po tak zarysowanych podstawach, Gazzaniga bardzo sugestywnie opisał funkcjonalność kluczowych komponentów człowieczeństwa - społeczne potrzeby, moralność, cierpienie, język i sztukę, świadomość i nasze pierwsze próby manipulacji genetycznej.
Publikacja jest bezcenna, bo łączy wiele wątków rozproszonych u innych autorów i po wielu publikacjach. W "Istocie człowieczeństwa" jest mnóstwo faktów podanych przystępnie, ale jednocześnie formalnie, choć bez zbędnych detali. Niepewne obszary naukowych dociekań zreferowane zostały syntetycznie z genialnymi komentarzami odautorskim. Podróż przez fenomen bycia człowiekiem okresowo poddał Gazzaniga konfrontacji ze światem zwierząt. Z całej lektury da się pozbierać te nasze wyjątkowości gatunkowe w ciekawy rys unikatowości Homo sapiens. Okazuje się, że nie tylko wstyd i płacz nas wyróżniają. Mamy swoisty stosunek do rzeczywistości, dysponujemy wyobraźnią i pamięcią, które pozostawiły inne istoty w tyle; posiadamy wbudowany pewien mechanizm (nazwany lewopółkulowym interpreterem - na detale zapraszam do książki), który potrafi uzasadnić dowolne kłamstwo. Zresztą cały rozdział o świadomości zasługuje chyba na Nobla literackiego. To, co Dennett opisał na 700 stronach, Gazzaniga skompresował ponad 10-krotnie. Choć Święty Graal neuronauki, czyli ustalenie tzw. neuronalnych korelat świadomości, wciąż nie ukazał się nam w pełni i wymaga wielu przełomów czy błyskotliwie przeprowadzonych badań, to w opiniowanej książce dostajemy aktualny stan jego poszukiwań.
Książka napisana jest językiem na tyle prostym jak to tylko było możliwe, ale wciąż wymagającym ciągłej uwagi. Nie da się jej czytać w przypadkowych okolicznościach. Uważam jednak, że powyższe argumenty świadczące o wyjątkowości treści są tak dominujące nad trudem włożonym w ich przyswojenie, że lektura nie może być czasem zmarnowanym. Jeśli lubisz i czytujesz Damasio, Dennetta, de Waala, Haidta, Kahnemana, Pinkera, Ridleya, Sacksa, Tomasello, Wranghama, to Gazzaniga jest dla ciebie. Przy okazji łączy większość rozważań wymienionych autorów w całość.
Gorąco polecam.
ŚWIETNA 9/10
Książek, które sięgają głęboko do sedna pytań o istotę bycia człowiekiem, o stopień jego wyjątkowości, o podobieństwa z innymi gatunkami na poziomie pracy mózgu, nie mamy dużo po polsku. Większość jest poradnikami psycho-socjologii, które certyfikatu uczoności poszukują w przytaczaniu wyrwanych z kontekstu badań, a często pozostają banalne we wtórności. Na szczęcie książka "Istota człowieczeństwa. Co sprawia że jesteśmy wyjątkowi" to solidny kawał cennej wiedzy deklasującej niemal wszystko, co jest dostępne na naszym rodzimym rynku wydawniczym w segmencie prac o człowieku.
Neuropsycholog Michael Gazzaniga zabrał mnie we wspaniałą intelektualną przygodę z człowiekiem, jako obiektem dociekań biologicznych, psychologicznych i socjologicznych. Pokazał wielobarwny świat naszych doświadczeń, potrzeb i motywacji. Opisał, w jaki sposób staliśmy się świadomi własnego 'JA', jako gatunek, jak kształtujemy nasze otoczenie i przypisujemy sprawstwo analizowanym fenomenom rzeczywistości. Autor prowadzi za rękę czytelnika przez kluczowe komponenty mózgu, by następnie pokazać konsekwencje tak wyewoluowanego narządu. Dziedziczymy po przodkach niskopoziomowe i nieświadomie realizowane zadania do przetrwania i jednocześnie doprowadziliśmy ten 'galaretowaty twór' do kreatywnej rozbudowy w korowe struktury. Po tak zarysowanych podstawach, Gazzaniga bardzo sugestywnie opisał funkcjonalność kluczowych komponentów człowieczeństwa - społeczne potrzeby, moralność, cierpienie, język i sztukę, świadomość i nasze pierwsze próby manipulacji genetycznej.
Publikacja jest bezcenna, bo łączy wiele wątków rozproszonych u innych autorów i po wielu publikacjach. W "Istocie człowieczeństwa" jest mnóstwo faktów podanych przystępnie, ale jednocześnie formalnie, choć bez zbędnych detali. Niepewne obszary naukowych dociekań zreferowane zostały syntetycznie z genialnymi komentarzami odautorskim. Podróż przez fenomen bycia człowiekiem okresowo poddał Gazzaniga konfrontacji ze światem zwierząt. Z całej lektury da się pozbierać te nasze wyjątkowości gatunkowe w ciekawy rys unikatowości Homo sapiens. Okazuje się, że nie tylko wstyd i płacz nas wyróżniają. Mamy swoisty stosunek do rzeczywistości, dysponujemy wyobraźnią i pamięcią, które pozostawiły inne istoty w tyle; posiadamy wbudowany pewien mechanizm (nazwany lewopółkulowym interpreterem - na detale zapraszam do książki), który potrafi uzasadnić dowolne kłamstwo. Zresztą cały rozdział o świadomości zasługuje chyba na Nobla literackiego. To, co Dennett opisał na 700 stronach, Gazzaniga skompresował ponad 10-krotnie. Choć Święty Graal neuronauki, czyli ustalenie tzw. neuronalnych korelat świadomości, wciąż nie ukazał się nam w pełni i wymaga wielu przełomów czy błyskotliwie przeprowadzonych badań, to w opiniowanej książce dostajemy aktualny stan jego poszukiwań.
Książka napisana jest językiem na tyle prostym jak to tylko było możliwe, ale wciąż wymagającym ciągłej uwagi. Nie da się jej czytać w przypadkowych okolicznościach. Uważam jednak, że powyższe argumenty świadczące o wyjątkowości treści są tak dominujące nad trudem włożonym w ich przyswojenie, że lektura nie może być czasem zmarnowanym. Jeśli lubisz i czytujesz Damasio, Dennetta, de Waala, Haidta, Kahnemana, Pinkera, Ridleya, Sacksa, Tomasello, Wranghama, to Gazzaniga jest dla ciebie. Przy okazji łączy większość rozważań wymienionych autorów w całość.
Gorąco polecam.
ŚWIETNA 9/10
November 19, 2024
Ihmisellä on paljon suurempi etuaivokuori kuin muilla nisäkkäillä.
Ihmisen sosiaalinen käyttäytyminen on erittäin monimutkaista ja täten vaatinut suuret aivot.
Muilla eläimillä ei luultavasti ole mielen teoriaa, eli käsitystä muista eläimistä ymmärtävinä olentoina, jotka tekevät päätöksiä, kuten minä.
Ihmisellä on moraalisia moduuleita, jotka ajavat päätöksentekoa:
vastavuoroisuus
Kärsimyksen vastenmielisyys
Hierarkia
Liittoutuminen ja vastakkainasettelu vihollisryhmiä kohtaan
Puhtaus, inho epäpuhtautta kohtaan (inhoa ei tunne eläimet).
Ihminen peilaa toisten tunteita solutasosta lähtien, mahdollinen selitys empatialle.
Ihmisen sosiaalinen käyttäytyminen on erittäin monimutkaista ja täten vaatinut suuret aivot.
Muilla eläimillä ei luultavasti ole mielen teoriaa, eli käsitystä muista eläimistä ymmärtävinä olentoina, jotka tekevät päätöksiä, kuten minä.
Ihmisellä on moraalisia moduuleita, jotka ajavat päätöksentekoa:
vastavuoroisuus
Kärsimyksen vastenmielisyys
Hierarkia
Liittoutuminen ja vastakkainasettelu vihollisryhmiä kohtaan
Puhtaus, inho epäpuhtautta kohtaan (inhoa ei tunne eläimet).
Ihminen peilaa toisten tunteita solutasosta lähtien, mahdollinen selitys empatialle.
June 16, 2024
Μια θαυμάσια πλεύση στον ωκεανό της Νευροεπιστήμης με καπετάνιο τον Μαϊκλ Γκαζάνιγκα και προορισμό την TERRA INCOGNITA που λέγεται ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ. Τι είναι ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ, ποιά είναι και που βρίσκεται η ιδιαίτερη αυτή Βιολογική Ύπαρξη μέσα στον Βιολογικό Κόσμο, μέσα στο Σύμπαν; Τι μας συνδέει με τα υπόλοιπα πλάσματα της Βιόσφαιρας και τι μας κάνει ξεχωριστούς; Τι μας κάνει να στοχαζόμαστε για την ζωή αντί απλά να την ζούμε; Ένα βιβλίο για κάθε αναγνώστη αλλά και βιβλίο αναφοράς για γιατρούς, ψυχολόγους, κοινωνιολόγους αλλά και επιστήμονες της τεχνητής νοημοσύνης.
April 3, 2019
A little long winded on basic science, but in the second half of the book the author reports on studies and subjects with pathological brain defects, and suddenly the reader is presented with an insight into the human sole.... and it is unsettling indeed.
Let's just say that if you read this book with an open mind, it will change your outlook on the World and out place within it.
Let's just say that if you read this book with an open mind, it will change your outlook on the World and out place within it.
February 26, 2017
I am not sure if the author fully addressed his thesis in this book. He asserts to help the reader understand the nature of his own consciousness and what sets us apart, in terms of brain function from other species. It reads somewhat like a psychology lecture, going through different aspects of brain function and what is known at the time. He compares us to a handful of other species.
January 8, 2025
The author alternates between trying to cram as many clichés as he can into each of his sentences, and an impenetrable scientific jargon. Writing is a skill, and this scientist is not good at it. DNF.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews