The Self and Its Brain

by Karl Popper, John C. Eccles

The problem of the relation between our bodies and our minds, and espe­ cially of the link between brain structures and processes on the one hand and mental dispositions and events on the other is an exceedingly difficult one. Without pretending to be able to foresee future developments, both authors of this book think it improbable that the problem will ever be solved, in the sense that we shall really understand this relation. We think that no more can be expected than to make a little progress here or there. We have written this book in the hope that we have been able to do so. We are conscious of the fact that what we have done is very conjectur­ al and very modest. We are aware of our fallibility; yet we believe in the intrinsic value of every human effort to deepen our understanding of our­ selves and of the world we live in. We believe in in human rationality, in human science, and in other human achievements, however fallible they are. We are unimpressed by the recurrent intellectual fashions that belittle science and the other great human achievements. An additional motive for writing this book is that we both feel that the debunking of man has gone far enough - even too far. It is said that we had to learn from Copernicus and Darwin that man's place in the universe is not so exalted or so exclusive as man once thought. That may well be.

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

614 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1977

About the author

Sir Karl Raimund Popper, FRS, rose from a modest background as an assistant cabinet maker and school teacher to become one of the most influential theorists and leading philosophers. Popper commanded international audiences and conversation with him was an intellectual adventure—even if a little rough—animated by a myriad of philosophical problems. He contributed to a field of thought encompassing (among others) political theory, quantum mechanics, logic, scientific method and evolutionary theory.

Popper challenged some of the ruling orthodoxies of philosophy: logical positivism, Marxism, determinism and linguistic philosophy. He argued that there are no subject matters but only problems and our desire to solve them. He said that scientific theories cannot be verified but only tentatively refuted, and that the best philosophy is about profound problems, not word meanings. Isaiah Berlin rightly said that Popper produced one of the most devastating refutations of Marxism. Through his ideas Popper promoted a critical ethos, a world in which the give and take of debate is highly esteemed in the precept that we are all infinitely ignorant, that we differ only in the little bits of knowledge that we do have, and that with some co-operative effort we may get nearer to the truth.

Nearly every first-year philosophy student knows that Popper regarded his solutions to the problems of induction and the demarcation of science from pseudo-science as his greatest contributions. He is less known for the problems of verisimilitude, of probability (a life-long love of his), and of the relationship between the mind and body.

Popper was a Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the British Academy, and Membre de I'Institute de France. He was an Honorary member of the Harvard Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, and an Honorary Fellow of the London School of Economics, King's College London, and of Darwin College Cambridge. He was awarded prizes and honours throughout the world, including the Austrian Grand Decoration of Honour in Gold, the Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association, and the Sonning Prize for merit in work which had furthered European civilization.

Karl Popper was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1965 and invested by her with the Insignia of a Companion of Honour in 1982.

(edited from http://www.tkpw.net/intro_popper/intr...)

Reviews

[Karl-O]

John Searle, in his book Mind: A Brief Introduction, says the following:

"...among most of the professionals in the field, substance dualism is not regarded as a serious possibility. A prominent exception is the defense of dualism offered by Karl Popper and J. C. Eccles. They claim that there are two quite distinct worlds, World 1 of physical objects and states and World 2 of states of consciousness. Each is a separate and distinct world that interacts with the other. Actually they go Descartes one better and also postulate World 3, a world of 'culture in all its manifestations.'"

Well, the least I can say is that I am excited to see how Popper's claim passes his falsifiability test, or would he call me a "Popperazzi" too?

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating history of the mind/brain problem, and exposition of a new (for the '70s) theory, by an eminent philosopher Karl Popper and Nobel laureate neuroscientist John Eccles. Each summarizes the relevant history and their arguments supporting the '3 Worlds' hypothesis. The neuroscience is now a bit dated - it would have been intriguing to hear what they thought of two more recent - and perhaps relevant books (V. Braitenberg's 'Vehicles' and Douglas Hofstadter's 'Godel, Escher, Bach'). Maybe the next generation of scholars will attempt a sequel?

Perfect for keeping my brain warm over the holidays without Wifi in subzero Wisconsin.

[Sasan]

It's on hold for now!

[Craig Bolton]

The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism by John C. Eccles (1984)

[Ryan Anthenat · Rating 5 out of 5]

it was a whooper of a read.

[Steve Allison · Rating 3 out of 5]

They discuss emergence and a number of issues related to the brain and self. Popper gives some good arguments against several versions of materialism. I wish I'd read this when I was younger.

[Frank Arca · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well articulated dilemma that is presented by two innovative thinkers of the last century.

[Alexand · Rating 4 out of 5]

مش موجودة النسخة العربية في قود ريدز

طريقة بوبر دائما اشوفه غريبة تقرا شوية تجد الموضوع بسيط فتفقد التركيز من ثمة فجأة تجد نفسك تدخل في مواضيع صعبة جدا , أسلوبه ما يعجبني مرة يميل
للعالم المادي او في هل النبرة اشوفه صعبة

المهم اطروحته بهل الكتاب جدا رائعة خاصة التقسيمة عمله في العوالم الثلاثة استفد منه جدا في شرح الانسان و العالم العالم واحد هو المادي
و الثاني هو نقدر نقول النفسي او اللاواعي بتحديد و الثالث هو العقلي المبدع و المفكر و التفاعل بين هل العوالم اساس الفكرة
عجبتني مقولته اثرت فيني مرة نحن يوم نتعلم شيء حتى يدخل في اللاواعي نعقل المثير من الجديد الي البديهي او القديم
كل محاولة معرفية صادقة اشوفه يجب ان تصبح المعرفة متدفق جدا في نفسك اي تصل للعالم الثاني كثير من الناس
مشكلته المعرفة حقته كله موجودة في العالم الثالث مسجونة هناك بدون ما تذهب للمستوى الثاني و حتى المستوى الأول هو الواقع المادي
هل الاطروحة ممكن النظر له من هل الناحية من وجهة نظري , ان علينا ان نستخدم العالم الثالث كجهاز تحليلي و يطهر ذواتنا , مثل الصيانة بحال العالم الثاني فيه مشاكل لا ان نتحدث بدون التجربة الحية مع الناس , في معلومة فتحت عندي صدمة كبيرة جدا معنه الكتاب ما ركز عليه و لا هو هدفه
و هو علم وراثة العالم الثاني يعني ما تكتسبه و تنقله للعالم الثاني من تجارب و ذكريات راح ينتقل الي ابنك و تصبح انت موجود فيه الموضوع كنه ميتافيزيقي لكن يوم بحثت فيه طلع في علم وراثة الذاكرة شيء محير غير كثير من نظرتي للحياة و اعتقد الجينات علم مهم بالفعل

الكتاب صعب راح اعيده اعتقد فهمت جوهره بعد وصلت بعد فترة متأخرة

[Larry · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first part is enjoyable even though Popper's rebuttal of Haldane's original point against materialism (i.e. if materialism provides an accurate depiction of the world, which would imply that everything can be broken down to chemical processes, then it is not true) didn't work for me (spoiler: he resorts to what I regard as a fallacious argument about the relationship between world 1 and 3: laws that command chemical processes do belong to world 3 but they also have an impact on world 1 because they help us to survive). The second part on the contrary is quite boring: Popper indulges in a cheesy summary of the philosophy of mind and the book draws nearer to a boring lecture. I find Nozick's cogitations on the problems caused by brain transplant for instance much more exciting.

[João Gabriel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Acredito que o livro é uma ótima introdução à discussão filosófica corpo-mente, embora seja necessária uma bagagem de neurofisiologia, neuroanatomia e filosofia da mente.

Os autores fazem muita referência a áreas corticais, conhecimento que só adquiri por ter estudado neuroanatomia previamente. Outra discussão constante seria sobre a continuidade do Eu e a importância da memória, assunto proveitoso após entender algumas teorias psicológicas sobre o tempo (Agostinho) e algumas bases neurofisiológicas da memória. Referência a algumas bases de epistemiologia também são constantes.

Resumindo: como o livro se propõe a ser um diálogo, ele é extremamente proveitoso para enriquecimento do tema. Mas acredito que seja necessário um conhecimento prévio das áreas citadas para melhor proveito da obra.

Nada impede que alguém que queira usar o livro como introdução ao tema o leia. Seja livre.

[Franz Bingenheimer · Rating 5 out of 5]

„Ein Buch, das mich intellektuell herausgefordert und zugleich tief beeindruckt hat.“
Ein faszinierendes Werk über die Beziehung zwischen Geist und Materie. Popper und Eccles verbinden Philosophie und Hirnforschung zu einer tiefgehenden Reflexion über das menschliche Bewusstsein. Anspruchsvoll, aber lohnend – ein Buch, das zum Nachdenken über das eigene Denken anregt. Ein Klassiker für alle, die verstehen wollen, wie Geist und Gehirn zusammenwirken.
Nachdem ich das Buch zweimal intensiv gelesen habe , verstehe ich die Sorgen des Menschen mit sich- und seiner Gesellschaft in der er lebt.

[Leonardo]

Una destacada [...] defensa del dualismo [...]

La Mente Pág.61

[Rika · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Vaida Macerenkaitė · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rejected the idea that neurons alone generate mind.

[Jacob Bornheimer]

Read relevant chapters for an essay but would like to go through this more closely, if only to critique it.