A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind: What Neuroscience Can and Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves

by Robert A. Burton

What if our soundest, most reasonable judgments are beyond our control?

Despite 2500 years of contemplation by the world's greatest minds and the more recent phenomenal advances in basic neuroscience, neither neuroscientists nor philosophers have a decent understanding of what the mind is or how it works. The gap between what the brain does and the mind experiences remains uncharted territory. Nevertheless, with powerful new tools such as the fMRI scan, neuroscience has become the de facto mode of explanation of behavior. Neuroscientists tell us why we prefer Coke to Pepsi, and the media trumpets headlines such as "Possible site of free will found in brain." Or: "Bad behavior down to genes, not poor parenting."

Robert Burton believes that while some neuroscience observations are real advances, others are overreaching, unwarranted, wrong-headed, self-serving, or just plain ridiculous, and often with the potential for catastrophic personal and social consequences. In A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind, he brings together clinical observations, practical thought experiments, personal anecdotes, and cutting-edge neuroscience to decipher what neuroscience can tell us – and where it falls woefully short. At the same time, he offers a new vision of how to think about what the mind might be and how it works.

A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind is a critical, startling, and expansive journey into the mysteries of the brain and what makes us human.

Genres: Psychology, Science, Nonfiction, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Skepticism, Brain

272 pages, Hardcover

First published April 16, 2013

About the author

Robert Burton, M.D. graduated from Yale University and University of California at San Francisco medical school, where he also completed his neurology residency. At age 33, he was appointed chief of the Division of Neurology at Mt. Zion-UCSF Hospital, where he subsequently became Associate Chief of the Department of Neurosciences. His non-neurology writing career includes three critically acclaimed novels. He lives in Sausalito, California.

http://us.macmillan.com/author/robert...

Reviews

[Lena · Rating 4 out of 5]

Robert Burton seems to have a fondness for yanking the rug out from how we like to think about ourselves. In his previous book, On Being Certain, he explained how the felt sense of certainty is a physiological illusion that often has no connection to reality of any sort.

In his current book, he takes issue with the wild claims being made about what modern neuroscience can tell us about ourselves. The fMRI has unleashed reams of new data about what is happening in our brains while we're doing or thinking about certain things, and while Burton agrees that what we are uncovering in these experiments is worth examining, he makes a very compelling argument that those interpreting this data are prone to making massive assumptions that go way beyond the data itself.

Of particular interest to me was a section in which he examined some research being done on patients in a persistent vegetative state. One researcher claimed his work was proof that these patients were in fact conscious, but Burton makes a very good argument that it does nothing of the sort, and those making such bold claims run the risk of causing families of these kinds of patients even more heartbreak than they have already experienced.

He also takes issue with a few specific neuroscientists, one of whom is Sam Harris. He argues that brain science is way behind the vision Harris outlined in The Moral Landscape, and that what constitutes well being isn't going to be as easy to nail down as Harris projects it will be.

While this book examines in detail a fair amount of specific current research, a good chunk of it is also devoted to speculative thought experiments. One of the more interesting of these involves group behavior of slime mold and swarming locusts, and poses questions about whether humans are as independent of other humans as we generally imagine ourselves to be.

Burton starts this book by pointing out that any attempt to examine the brain/mind by using the brain/mind is rife with potential problems, and his goal in writing this book is to help us stay aware of the hazards inherent in that process. An examination of how technical limitations that allowed us to study one type of brain cell but not another caused us to make the erroneous assumption that the cells we were studying were the ones doing the actual thinking is an important cautionary tale. While it's much less exciting than the wild promises coming out of some neuroscience labs, this book an important reminder of the fact that what we have yet to learn about the brain dwarfs what little we actually do know.

[Greg Nigh · Rating 4 out of 5]

If it were a crime to propose a plausible theory of how electrical events in the brain generate consciousness, no neuroscientists writing on that topic today would even be called in for questioning. This is not, to be sure, for lack of the attempt. Anyone visiting the Science section of a bookstore will be treated to half a dozen pop-neuroscience books that purport to explain how evolution brought the flash and flicker of neurons to coalesce themselves into everything from a sense of self and the belief in God, to your decision to go with medium salsa today, even though mild is your standard fare.

The absurdity of these theories hides behind a thick veil of references to studies that - readers are to trust - constitute supporting evidence. We should all be thankful that a few voices of skepticism have steadily appeared, allowing us to peek behind this curtain of explanations offered by neuroscientists. I've reviewed two of those books here on Goodreads, Tallis's Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity and Nagel's Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Tallis shows brilliantly why neuroscience hasn't come close yet to explaining consciousness. Nagel's nail is to show, without apologies, why it never will.

It is into this fray that Robert Burton's A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind leaps. The title held great promise, and within the first few pages it was clear to me that I would be disappointed with his thesis, whatever that turned out to be. The early pages were peppered with one-off sentences that landed like mosquito bites. Here he comments on our ability to recognize our body as part of our sense of self:

If you saw a hand rapidly approaching your face, you wouldn't be immediately able to know if you were about to unconsciously scratch an itch or were getting mugged. Mercifully, evolution has given us a built-in method for immediate recognition of our body and its parts (19).

I find sentences like this scientifically appalling. The only explanation for how evolution gave us such a "built-in method" is the fact that the recognition exists at all. It would be so much more accurate and honest for him to have said, "Mercifully, we have a built-in method..."

Or this:

A brain will not spontaneously try to plan a trip just because it can any more than it will slyly work on a novel or try to solve Fermat's last theorem just to surprise you. It's purpose is to accommodate its owner's wishes and desires, and have a rough idea of what might be a satisfactory initial response... It knows what a week off "means" to you and what might constitute a good set of possibilities to show you. Like a good salesman, it will sort through yourpast memories and preferences to suggest those items most likely to be pleasing to you (emphasis added) (64).

I would hope that I'm not the only one left wondering who the "you" is that this "it" of a brain will serve these things to.

Burton goes on to devote significant effort, for a few chapters at least, toward establishing a computational model of brain function. He seems comfortably unaware of the devastating critiques of this model put forth by the likes of Roger Penrose and David Berlinski, neither being lightweight in the field of, well, thinking. In obvious fact, the chasm between algorithms applied to sensory data, and the unbounded subjective sense of being a point of view situated within an experienced world, is wide enough to make the word "chasm" trivial in this context. One cannot leap from one to the other, even with the strongest running start; they are worlds apart, an expanse that won't be covered by more functional brain imaging.

I had almost lost interest in the book altogether, and then around page 107 things began to change, and over the course of the remaining chapters the full impact of Burton's critique became beautifully clear. Whatever disagreements I had about his depiction of my brain's computational workings, he swept these aside and then fully enlisted me in his thesis beginning with this pivotal recognition:

The idea that minds operate according to universal principles is a reflection of the way we study biological systems in general (107).

General principles are what tie individual observations together. They represent the compression of disparate data gathered into short and predictive statements about how that data is structured and how future data collected in the same domain will, in a statistically significant way, conform to that structure. General principles are the foundation of science. Newton's brilliance was not his documenting that an apple fell from a tree. His legacy was in formulating the general principle that describes how falling things fall and then, even more generally, how masses attract one another.

Neuroscience is replete with general principles at its foundation. These principles structure information and observations around the summation of action potentials on neuron bodies, around the establishment and maintenance of various membrane potentials, around brain/body correlates for sensory input, around the ebb and flow of ions, and many other anatomical and physiological realities. Note: The skeptical reader should consult Harold Hillman's Certainty And Uncertainty In Biochemical Techniques, as well as his The Case For New Paradigms In Cell Biology And In Neurobiology, for some compelling reasons to question even these "realities."

The leap of faith that neuroscientists writing about cognition and the neurological origins of consciousness implicitly ask readers to make is this: that from studying the electrical activity of individual neurons and brains, general principles can be described about the subjective experience that those electrical activities generate in all self-aware beings. In fact, many of those writers would have readers believe that self-awareness itself springs from neuronal activities as evidently as every playground teeter bring forth a totter. Burton's insider perspective on the evidence behind these claims makes his demolition uniquely compelling.

A succinct statement of Burton's critique might distill down to this: No matter what activity a brain scan shows, scientists will never know what the subject was experiencing until they turn from their scanner and ask, "What were you experiencing just then?" The dirty secret of cognitive neuroscientist is that the experiencing subject has to crash onto the scene and be consulted about their experience. Brain activity is not and can never be the final word on the matter of experience.

To offer this summary of Burton's book is not a spoiler, because it is nothing close to an adequate summary. Nevertheless, a common theme to these chapters is the intractable problem that self-awareness presents for brain-activity-obsessed neuroscientists. Burton notes that self-awareness encompasses at least 6 "brain senses" as he calls them. These senses, for reasons he clearly demonstrates, are as opaque to functional brain scans as good ideas are to microscopes.

Take, for example, the sense of agency, one of the six mental senses that Burton identifies as universal to all humans. When we engage in any action or entertain any thought, we also have a sense that we have been the source of that action or the originator of that thought. I not only type these words, but I have the sense that I am responsible for moving my fingers about as they do, and could choose to move them otherwise (as many, no doubt, wish I would). Situating this fundamentally intangible sense within and among the various neurons that are firing as I have this mental sense is not just tricky. It is culturally based, dynamic and malleable.

Burton's book is a rarity for me. I can't recall being so clearly in disagreement with a writer in the first 100 pages, then being such a strong supporter of their thesis by the end of the same book. It was a refreshing change, but also points to some issues that leave me with a 4-start recommendation instead of 5.

I think that his acceptance of the computational model of the brain, which he refers to through the duration of the book in order to illustrate various points, keeps him from understanding the full weight of his own critique. He argues that most of the experience we recognize as consciousness are the result of pre- or unconscious activity in the brain. Consciousness, in Burton's formulation, is the tip of a computational iceberg. And that iceberg is forever unknowable to neuroscientists because they always have to ask the subject about their experience to establish what correlates to measured brain activity. Because most computations are unconscious and not accessible to the conscious subject, the most relevant correlations can never be made. Neuroscientists are left attempting general principles from this small sliver of these brain/experience correlations that are accessible to the conscious studied subject.

Burton embraces the computational model perhaps because the alternatives are not particularly enticing. Penrose, for example, situates the endless birth of consciousness in that mysterious transition between the quantum and material worlds. See, for example, The Large, the Small and the Human Mind. This, it seems to me, is like cleaning your house by throwing all dirt and debris into one room: It makes some areas more tidy, but the cleanliness of the house is, on average, no better than before you started. Berlinski's way out of this mess is I think the most reasonable and conforms best to what we can conclude from the evidence at hand, even if it sends shudders of existential protest through the halls of science.

We are confronted with certain open questions. We do not know the answers, but what is worse, we have no clear idea - no idea whatsoever - of how they might be answered. But perhaps that is where we should be left: in the dark, tortured by confusing hints, intimations of immortality, and a sense that, dear God, we really do not yet understand (The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays, 270).

My final complaint about Burton are his very predictable references to evolution as that which molded the human mind into its blindingly complex coordination of unconscious brain activity. These evolutionary adaptations, the story goes, now eke out what we call our conscious experience almost as an afterthought. Again, the evidence that it ended up this way due to some incremental set of adaptive changes is no more robust than saying, well, here we are, so those adaptive changes must have been. This is the famous Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc School of Evolutionary Theory. In fact, this is the only school in existence today. Burton can't be blamed for enrolling, but I can still wish he had informed his thinking with a bit more independent study in this regard.

In the end, I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in neuroscience and in the growing vogue to explain the human experience in terms of electrical events in the brain. Burton draws a tight boundary around what neuroscience can and cannot explain, and in doing so he offers up for the readers' fascination many novel ways of thinking about thinking.

[Hayley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book questions whether studying the nervous system can really reveal the workings of the mind -- a nonphysical entity whose exact connection to the physical brain might be impossible to understand.

Our minds are inadequate, biased and inconsistent tools for comprehending themselves, according to Author Robert A. Burton, a physician and writer focused on neurology with a flair for philosophy.

He emphasizes that much of what happens in our brain is subconscious, and that concepts like will, sense of self, and agency, are actually "involuntary mental sensations" -- feelings that arise in our consciousness as products of our underlying mental processing, more like dashboard lights than steering wheels.

Adding confusion, many of the abstract terms traditionally used to talk about the mind are poorly defined to begin with, and trying to pin them down with science is often folly, the author asserts. For instance, what are "morality" and "fairness," really? Given that there are so many opinions about what those terms mean, is it really useful to try finding out how they arise in the brain?

Throughout the book, neuroscience, philosophy and psychology collide. Hard data and brain scans don't necessarily translate to fuzzy concepts like intention, empathy and morality, but that does not stop some researchers from trying to jump this gap and claim they've found specific brain locations that produce or influence these traits, or fMRI scans that reveal them taking place.

Author Burton criticizes many specific studies where he thinks interpretation has gone awry. If I were a neuroscientist, I'd fear finding my own name in this book.

For one example, he picks apart statements on the often publicized mirror neurons, which fire both when the subject acts and when the subject watches someone else perform the same act (ie monkey reaches for peanut to eat it, then sees human reaching for peanut to eat it and same neurons fire, or people watching a certain facial expression have same neurons fire again when making the expression themselves). Some researchers have described mirror neuron activity as "mind reading" and implicated mirror neurons as important for linking empathy, mind reading and imitation. The author claims they're over-interpreting: Simply recognizing another's intentional act is not the same as knowing the complex motivation driving it - it's not really mind reading; also, you can understand someone's intent without feeling empathy, and having empathy for something like a struggling centipede does not involve any mind reading. (Does a centipede have a mind to read?)

(Of course, we can question whether empathy for something without a sophisticated mind would really be properly classified as empathy at all - just my two cents.)

The author emphasizes that speculation from neurological researchers and physicians can profoundly affect public opinion and life-or-death decisions, such as when to pull the plug on a brain trauma patient or whether brain scans can ever reveal criminal intent in a murder case. He suggests that neuroscientists have a special type of power in public discourse because of what they study, so they have a particular responsibility to speak carefully about findings -- I find this aspect of his arguments particularly compelling.

Burton loses me, however, when he starts seeming dramatic or overreactive about the impacts of questionable studies. For example, a study said that intelligence is strongly influenced by genetics. Burton questions some of the study interpretation, which is fine, but then says, "As history has repeatedly warned us, reductionistic statements about the genetics of human behavior carry an enormous potential for misuse and abuse. Keep in mind that similar leaps of logic and misappropriation of isolated bits of questionable scientific data provided the rational for the practice of eugenics."

The book tells neuroscientists and the public to take a step back from jumping to conclusions about what brain scans and data mean about the mind, but it offers few solutions for how to be more certain than we are now. In fact, given the subjective nature of each person's mental experience, Burton's solution seems to be embracing uncertainty.

He calls the study of the mind a "data-based art form, not another branch of the basic sciences."

Uncertainty may remain the truest lense for looking at any mind-brain connection, but one has to acknowledge that humans continue looking for certainty, and the majority of the general public is not that likely to read this kind of book. Whose responsibility is it to prevent jumping to conclusions about findings? Even if neuroscientists are circumspect, can they really prevent the media and public from taking things the wrong way?

Burton does give advice that neuroscientists should state and publicize their personal biases, to help people understand the motivations behind their work. I think people should state their biases more openly in ALL areas of work and life, frankly.

But, given what Burton has said about the mysterious and often subconscious nature of the mind, how well do we ever know our biases, anyway?

[Dovilė Stonė · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sunkus skaitinys, nes labai nejauku ir keista galvoti apie savo galvojimą. Protui sunku objektyviai suvokti save. Kaip pasakytų autorius - neįmanoma. Bet kokia reikalinga šita knyga šiais neurohaipo laikais!

Mes turim tokį neracionalų, bet mielai žmogišką įsitikinimą, kad išnarplioję savo smegenis iki mažiausių detalyčių, suprasim Proto Esmę. Surasim savo savastį, motyvus, vertybes - atsakysim į visus klausimus ir išgydysim visas ligas. Taip randasi tokie projektai kaip "Human Connectome" - su tokiais TED Talk'iniais pažadais apie naują puslapį žmonijos istorijoje, kad net veidą nuo cringe'inimo skauda.

Ne tame esmė.

Neuromokslas yra labai įdomus ir reikalingas, bet būtina pripažinti jo ribas - kitaip nusivažiuosim bet kur, tik ne ten, kur iš tikro norim. Sekant mokslo naujienas, nepanašu, kad šiandien tos ribos būtų juntamos ir komunikuojamos. Iš smegenų scan'ų daromos išvados drąsesnės nei buriant iš kavos tirščių, ir daug kas persmelkta a) tiriančiųjų išankstiniais įsitikinimais ir vertybėmis; b) laiko dvasia; c) redukcionistiniu požiūriu į žmogaus protą.

Savo sritį tenka haipinti, jei nori gauti finansavimą ir šiaip neprarasti motyvacijos, bet tai labai klaidina. Kaip jau minėjau apžvelgdama Judith Grisel knygą apie priklausomybes - mokslinis kuklumas yra būtinas subrendusiam mokslininkui ir mokslo sričiai.
(https://dekonstruoju.lt/apzvalga-neve...)

"Humility, reverence, and respect for the unknowable should be the default mind-set when contemplating great mystery, and there is nothing more mysterious than a mind contemplating itself."

Knyga nėra tik "pafilosofavimai". Joje - labai daug realių pavyzdžių neuromokslo, kuris sau leido per daug nusiinterpretuoti, tyrinėdamas laisvą valią, intelektą ir sąmonę. Puikiai atskleidžiama, kodėl viskas daug sudėtingiau nei mums atrodo.

"Perhaps one of the major driving forces in modern neuroscience is the belief that we are unique and that this uniqueness can be established through biological evidence. How ironic, given that our own sense of uniqueness is itself driven by our biology. It is our sense of agency, ownership, and a unique sense of self that propels both our need to understand our uniqueness and the concurrent sense that we have the intellectual capabilities to make this determination."

Labai daug peno apmąstymams, skaitykite.

[Cheryl]

Burton wrote this prematurely, and quickly. He was very concerned about the increasing popularity of the advances in neuroscience, the rush to publish from all the new graduates of the field, the media's enthusiastic pointing to particular genes, memes, biases, etc.

He didn't hold off until we actually understood a bit more, and had replicated some more studies, and had dismissed more claims. This book is full of "further research may well show" and "I don't mean to generalize/ assume/ imply..." and "this is a thought experiment" and "I don't believe...."

Which makes it good candidate for a power skim. I'm not absorbing every word as if I'm going to be tested. Mostly, I admit, I'm enjoying the new anecdotes about Mrs. B and all the other unfortunates who have inadvertently sacrificed themselves for science.

The main problem is that Burton's warnings here were not taken sufficiently seriously. The problems with the dissemination of bad science have gotten *worse* since 2013.

"The sense of beauty and truth as features of processing speed helps explain our tendencies to judge the familiar as correct, ... why we stick with brand names, and why new information and ideas are less likely to feel correct than old ideas with which we are comfortable."

"Perhaps we'd judge [the intelligence and intent of] the bowerbird differently if it wore a beret."

[Jeannette · Rating 3 out of 5]

The three rating isn't because this book was uninteresting. I took a lot of neuroscience in college, so the first seven chapters was a lot of review for me, hence the 3 rating. Once I got past all of that though, there were some pretty interesting areas that I haven't explored yet, that looked critically at the use of brain scans and the anatomy of a thought. I particularly enjoyed the discussions on consciousness and the dangerous of sensationalist research. My only wish is that the author would have delved into more of the claims.

[Al Bità · Rating 4 out of 5]

In today’s society (at least in the most advanced Western world), developments in the field of neuroscience (e.g. through the use of new and more powerful technologies such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) which can map neural activity in the brain) are thriving as never before. Simple scientific facts and information are combined with often highly non-scientific speculative extrapolations which then “hit the headlines” as “breaking news” sound-bites and passed on as “facts” about the mind. The “information” bit is fine; the extrapolations, on the other hand are more purely speculative than anything else. As we all know, having lots and lots of information does not mean we have wisdom or even understanding.

Burton expresses his concerns about this state of affairs: “What alarms me is that a lack of clear understanding of what we can and cannot say about the mind and the commonly held belief in the unlimited powers of science is a potent recipe for potential catastrophe.” In this book, Burton sets out to provide for the normal layperson interested in this question his arguments in support of the need for a more sceptical approach. From this point of view, Burton’s case is sobering and, dare I say it, wise. We need to be able to distinguish between the facts and the speculations. We need to take our steps into unknown territory on the firmer ground of actual facts as provided by the tools of science rather than upon the more shaky ground of speculations and fantasy.

Burton provides his cautionary approach on much of the activity in many fields dealing with the brain, the mind, neuroscience and the philosophy of science, and does so with direct, straightforward writing which I found to be quite accessible and readable. He is particularly concerned about biases that can creep (sometimes unsuspectingly) into one’s speculations; and this is particularly the case when it comes to the study of the mind. “Studying the mind isn’t like other areas of science, where accurate measurements can be made without significant intrusion of perceptual biases.” (p. 222)

Another area of unconscious bias lies in the area of cultural difference, particularly in the area of behavioural psychology. Burton provides an example (pp. 105—107) based on a 2010 University of British Columbia research team report:

“… Lifelong members of societies that are Western, educated, industrialised, rich, democratic (the authors coined the acronym WEIRD) reacted differently from others in experiment after experiment involving measures of fairness, anti-social punishment, and cooperation, as well as when responding to visual illusions and questions of individualism and conformity. ‘The fact that WEIRD people are the outliers in so many key domains of the behavioural sciences may render them one of the worst subpopulations one could study for generalising about Homo sapiens.’ The researchers found that 96 percent of behavioural science experiment subjects are from Western industrialised countries, even though those countries have just 12 percent of the world’s population, and that 68 percent of all subjects are Americans.

“… Heinrich [Head of the research team] feels that either many behavioural psychology studies have to be redone on a far wider range of cultural groups — a daunting proposition — or they must be understood to offer insight only into the minds of rich, educated Westerners.
Results of a scientific study that offer universal claims about human nature should be independent of location, cultural factors and any outside influences.

“… And yet, much of what we know or believe we know about human behaviour has been extrapolated from the study of a small subsection of the world’s population known to have different perceptions in such disparate domains as fairness, moral choice, even what we think about sharing. If we look beyond the usual accusations and justifications — from the ease of inexpensively studying undergraduates to career-augmenting shortcuts — we are back at the recurrent problem of a unique self-contained mind dictating how it should study itself.”

This is just one fascinating insight into many other mind-related studies Burton investigates.

Philosophically speaking, at the core of this discussion sits Descartes’ famous splitting of the Mind and the Body as two distinct and separate realities. This Cartesian Dualism has become problematic: its “reality” has been questioned, and it remains even today a basic issue of contention. Neurological science is tending to push towards a more purely materialistic understanding, that what some people call the Mind is nothing more than the result of a functioning Brain; so consciousness, morality, culture, reality, emotions, and all those metaphysical qualities we associate with the Mind (some might also call it the Spirit) is nothing more than the result of chemical reactions within the brain. Personally I tend to believe this to be the case, and that eventually this will be proven to be so. Such a conclusion, however, brings terror to some people, and disquiet to others. I suspect that behind Burton’s scepticism lies such a disquiet. This does not necessarily mean that that Burton’s recommendation to be sceptical is not worthy. Certainly we should not necessarily rush forward if caution is indicated.

But I also suspect that Burton is not so disconcerted about the truth or otherwise about whether the brain and the mind is one and the same thing, provided that the steps taken on that path are set on the firmest of scientific facts, not on wild speculations based on imaginative fantasies. After all, Burton places at the beginning of his Introduction a quote from a certain Edward P Morgan which should be at the forefront of an inquiring, minding brain. It reads (with an apology for the gender bias):

A book is the only place in which you can examine a fragile thought without breaking it, or explore an explosive idea without fear it will go off in your face. It is one of the few havens remaining where a man’s mind can get both provocation and privacy.

[Talley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Robert A. Burton is an excellent writer this book really helped my understanding of cognitive Neuroscience I really enjoyed it! ❤❤❤❤❤

[Phil Calderone · Rating 3 out of 5]

Broader and less specific than his previous book, "On Being Certain." A Skeptics Guide is a reminder, somewhat a warning, against putting premature confidence in the vast amount of new scientific results coming out of current neurological research. This being the infancy of behavioral neurology study it is too early to make conclusions. Yes we are learning more than simplistic knowledge like that thinking occurs in the brain's cortex but, as we start to learn about smaller areas and neural networks, we are learning that this is a very complex beast--very interactive.

Behavioral neurology and specifically evolutionary biology are fascinating realms but it's early. Enjoy the ride. Long way to go.

[Eri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Similar to The Genome, Robert A. Burton translates scientific articles to an English anyone can understand. He brings out interesting thoughts, how free will, ethics, or character is interpreted in neuroscience. An acknowledgement to the limitations of the brain, but most importantly, how beautifully complex the brain really is, and a great appreciation to where technology has gotten to understanding it. His writing style is really casual, and I find his explanations thorough in a very accessible way. If you're mildly curious on science's take on some of the bigger question, it's worth looking into.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

Funnily I bought it anticipating an introduction to the science of the mind and to neuroscience. Oh boy could I be more off. I enjoyed reading the author´s scoop on neuroscience studies, which was often critical, as well as his reflections on the scientific method and the philosophy of the mind. I wish the book would be organized in a more logical way to facilitate systemization of learning, as although I understood most of what I was reading, I often struggled to retain or to mentally summarize what I´d just read. Perhaps one should always have a solid introductory understanding of neuroscience perior to picking up this book.

[Nick de Vera · Rating 2 out of 5]

skepticism is fine, neuroscience is overhyped, sure, but the flat confidence that there are things neuroscience cannot, will never answer is obviously, gasp, dogmatic. we know about cognitive biases, we've read the case studies. how can we use our brains to know when brains are wrong? by checking each other, science.

[Lemniscus · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was a very insightful book. It shows us the limitations of present-day neuroscience in tackling longstanding philosophical questions, and even some problems that I even thought were already solved but were actually found to be deeply misunderstood.

[Dr Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most honest books by a scientist addressing what can and cannot be known in his own discipline.

If you have any curiosity at all about the nature and parameters of real scientific knowledge, you must read Burton. Simply excellent.

[Hom Sack · Rating 5 out of 5]

Burton offers reasonable doubts about what neuroscience can offer. For a shorter version, see:

A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind | Robert Burton | Talks at Google - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnu0v...)

[Saunaguy · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://digitalsauna.wordpress.com/20...

[Angel · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s an interesting book that talks about the way we act and the research explaining why we act this way. Really interesting but didn’t find myself wanting to keep reading??????

[Joanne McKinnon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mysterious Mind

The mind is fascinating. Neuroscientists have different points of view. The author accepts the limitations of science when comes to the mind.

[Charlie Weston · Rating 3 out of 5]

Useful to bring expectations back down to reality but doesn't make for a great read

[Brian Angle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tough slog for a short book. I shouldn't pick up free books at the dump.

[Bob Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Burton's very accessible book on the current limits of neuroscience, some of which may be ultimately insurmountable, is a call to critical thinking and good research that meets the rigorous standards of science research. His central theme is especially the idea "that the largely involuntarily generated mind feels quite strongly that it can explain itself." This is a paradox no one can overcome when trying to thoroughly understand the mind. With clear reasoning, Burton carefully constructs the argument that totally understanding the mind, including consciousness, has many pitfalls and difficulties that may be too hard to overcome.
He is careful to separate some of the experimental work that has been done, especially work that could have alternative, rational explanations, from the scientists who have done that work. Humans and human minds are incredibly complex and we cannot really control all of the alternatives to our theories in order to get satisfying conclusions to many of the more current experiments.
Neuroscience is "hot" these days and many of the reports of its recent successes go far beyond the actual results found. Sensationalized in the press (to capture eyeballs for the ads surrounding these articles) and, occasionally, the researcher who over sells the results that he or she actually got, offer the layman an errant understanding of the capabilities of science in studying the mind. On occasion, even the scientific journals are not as objective as they should be. Burton offers some sound advice what to look for when reading about brain-mind research.
Burton also tackles the "hard problem of consciousness," and lays out some of the difficulties to truly understanding consciousness and the inadequacy of the tools we have in hand today, and, possibly ever.
In spite of the doubt Burton expresses in man's ability to ultimately understand the mind, the book is not an indictment on the field or the practitioners in cognitive science and neuroscience, but rather a remind to think critically about the results of this research and the limits of what that research can tell us.
Excellent book - I really marked up this one! Recommend!

[Nina · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this at the suggestion of my brother Dennis after he read my reviews of the Hidden Brain and Blindspot. Initially, I thought it would be another take on the same theme ("Before you can begin conscious deliberation, the playing field of your mind will already be littered with snap judgements and gut feelings", and "For any complex thought that takes more than a couple minutes, you have no way of knowing whether this thought has been subliminally affected by bias in its round-trip from conscious to unconscious and back again.") But then it became much more fascinating as the author pursued the limits of neuroscience and our hubris at thinking we can use our brain to understand the brain. "It is the human condition to experience a largely involuntarily generated mind that feels quite strongly that it can rationally explain itself." ha ha! He concludes that the study of the mind is a data-based art form rather than a true science. "After all, conclusions about the mind are personal visions, not irrefutable and inevitable consequences of scientific thought." A great addition to my brain library.

[Wanda Pedersen]

3.5 Stars out of 5

I love to read books about how the brain works and how scientists have figured out how the brain works. I figure that if I can understand my own brain better, I can understand other people better and that should improve life in general.

This book calls into question a lot of the headlines that get published in the media about brain function. How many of them are based on ill-conceived experiments? How many of the stories suffer because neurologists aren't the best story tellers available? They understand the scientific jargon, but have to translate it into narratives that the rest of us will understand. Inevitably, they use the pop-psychology terminology of the moment, which may actually hinder our understanding in the long run.

We also have to address the question, "Is the brain actually capable of evaluating itself objectively?" Can a scientist be objective about this?

All good questions and the author is honest enough to admit that it may be a long time until we are good enough scientists to answer them.

[Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this effective attempt to pull together what current neuroscience can and cannot tell us. AND, the writing is great, some wonderful similes that help you really understand the outrageous claims that are being made (right up there with what was once thought true of lobotomies and phrenology...)

It also supports the work of my colleague Dr. Dario Nardi whose book The Neuroscience of Personality draws on his own research with college students at UCLA. Early on in his work, Nardi realized that unless he talked with his subjects, he couldn't understand their intentions or reactions--in other words, he couldn't tell why their brains were doing what they are doing. Nardi decided that while his research is thus disqualified from most journals, where objectivity is on a pedestal, he couldn't do legitimate research and meet journal requirements. After reading A Skeptic's Guide, I am even more convinced he chose the right path...

[Hannah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good book, especially for those who are really intent on believing that science can solve the age old questions of morality and ethics. It gives an opening account of what is going on in neuroscience, how scientists beliefs can invade their research and how to keep an open mind on what we are really learning. It doesn't put neuroscience down at all, on the contrary it holds sciecne up very high. However anything that claims an absolute on any aspect of knowledge ought to be looked at with skeptisicm. Neuroscience can NOT tell us about morality, nor ethics, no much about consciousness (as thought of subjectively, which consciousness is..a subjective experience). Science is still very far from that, and may never get there.

[Neill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a thought-provoking, persuasive critique about the limits of modern neuroscience. Reading conclusions drawn from recent neurological studies, I often found them shaky, overreaching and unconvincing. This book explains why. The author does a good job expounding why understanding the physiology of the brain is not the same as understanding how the mind works and never will be.

The only thing I wish he would have done is more positive writing. He does a good job showing the limits of neuroscience, but I wish he would have explained more what its methodologies and findings can validly be used for.

[Jim Razinha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Started weak and overly academic, got better, ended with too much philosophical nonsense. To quote from James Morrow's Only Begotten Daughter:

“Science does have all the answers,” said Howard, withdrawing. “The problem is that we don’t have all the science.”

And philosophical musing about the mind is not science. Stick with the brain (and might want to rethink poking at Stephen Hawking's intellect...) Still, there were some interesting side trips from following up on some of Burton's references. Slime mold. Check it out.

[Nik · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a great reminder for of the limits of scientific inquiry and the difference between scientific studies, speculation and the broad scientific consensus on any given topic. I am fascinated by the current discipline of neuroscience and am excited to see what the future studies show in this arena. Meanwhile I am happy applying a dose of skepticism as the studies in this field continue to shed light on what we know, what we can know, and what we may never know regarding the mind.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating discussion of the limits of neuroscience in probing the nature of the mind. One of those books that introduces a new (to me) idea that completely changes the way I look at and think about a topic.

[Claire Binkley]

I want to come back to this at a later point! There is far too much for me to comprehend, like those science fiction novels.

This is something I am interested in, but I had not anticipated how overwhelming this science is.