What do you think?
Rate this book
Consciousness: How Our Brains Turn Matter into Meaning
What is the material basis of the thoughts that occur inside our heads?Where do imaginative, creative, or spiritual thoughts come from - can these really be the product of nerve impulses in the brain? And is the human mind radically different from that of other species, or is our uniqueness more superficial than real? In this book, Oxford biologist John Parrington proposes a radical new theory of human consciousness, arguing that a qualitative leap in consciousness occurred during human evolution as language and tool use transformed our brains. Rejecting outdated views of the brain as a hard-wired circuit diagram, he draws on the latest insights from neuroscience to show that meaning is created within our heads through a dynamic interaction of oscillating brain waves. This new model of consciousness not only provides a material basis of our innermost thoughts but also explains why the mind can sometimes go wrong, causing deep mental distress.
227 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 26, 2023
13 people are currently reading
190 people want to read
About the author
John Parrington
15 books8 followersJohn Parrington is an Associate Professor in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology at the University of Oxford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
April 13, 2025
Acum câteva luni am citit cartea "Conștiința dintr-o nouă perspectivă" de Michael Graziano, ce susținea o teorie a conștiinței centrată pe atenție. A venit momentul să citesc o altă carte despre conștiință, de această dată cu limbajul și folosirea uneltelor în prim-plan.
John Parrington se folosește de teoria dezvoltării cognitive a lui Lev Vîgotski. Acesta susține că tendința copiilor de a vorbi singuri când se joacă reprezintă primul stadiu al încercării copilului de a-și organiza acțiunile folosind cuvintele. Deși pare că dispare cu timpul, această formă de discurs este de fapt internalizată sub forma "discursului interior".
Discursul intern nu reprezintă doar modul în care transformăm gândurile în vorbire sau simboluri externe, ci este parte integrantă a procesului de gândire. Gândurile sunt mediate de limbaj.
La fel ca limbajul, folosirea uneltelor a transformat gândirea și conștiința. Se știe că Homo Habilis folosea unelte acum 3-4 milioane de ani, cu mult înainte de apariția limbajului articulat.
Deși nu se îndoiește că alte animale non-umane au conștiință, autorul consideră conștiința umană unică. Limbajul și folosirea sistematică a uneltelor sunt cele care imprimă unicitate conștiinței umane.
Recomand
John Parrington se folosește de teoria dezvoltării cognitive a lui Lev Vîgotski. Acesta susține că tendința copiilor de a vorbi singuri când se joacă reprezintă primul stadiu al încercării copilului de a-și organiza acțiunile folosind cuvintele. Deși pare că dispare cu timpul, această formă de discurs este de fapt internalizată sub forma "discursului interior".
Discursul intern nu reprezintă doar modul în care transformăm gândurile în vorbire sau simboluri externe, ci este parte integrantă a procesului de gândire. Gândurile sunt mediate de limbaj.
La fel ca limbajul, folosirea uneltelor a transformat gândirea și conștiința. Se știe că Homo Habilis folosea unelte acum 3-4 milioane de ani, cu mult înainte de apariția limbajului articulat.
Deși nu se îndoiește că alte animale non-umane au conștiință, autorul consideră conștiința umană unică. Limbajul și folosirea sistematică a uneltelor sunt cele care imprimă unicitate conștiinței umane.
Recomand
December 9, 2023
Oxford biologist John Parrington’s exposition on the biological, and psychosocial basis of human consciousness.
Parrington criticizes David Chalmers assertion that consciousness is a special hard problem as idealist in nature. Additionally, Parrington assails panpsychism (the theoretical explanation most associated with Chalmers and colleagues), i.e., the theory that consciousness is a fundamental feature of matter (as opposed to an evolved trait), as implausible and lacking evidence.
Parrington is slightly more supportive of Danieal Dennett’s work on consciousness, as it is grounded in scientific materialism, and evolutionary theory, but criticizes Dennett’s theory that memetic reproduction as the engine of consciousness as also belonging to idealism.
Parrington is a biologist, and he is English. As such and as may be easily predicted, he’s VERY grounded in evolutionary theory. While he stops short of engaging in Chalmers hard question of consciousness debate. He does assert that consciousness is an evolved biological trait that confers survival benefits.
Parrington differentiates between other animal consciousness and human consciousness, based on uniquely human psychosocial factors, symbolic language and tool use.
Again, Parrington doesn’t attempt to explain subjective/phenomenological experiences via objective/positivistic analysis.
Parrington acknowledges that Chalmers is correct in his assertion that subjectivity is hard to explain via objective methods. However, Parrington is unwilling to concede that consciousness is in a special category, or is somehow not an emergent property of neurobiology. In other words. He refuses to take the bait and bite the hook on that one. And (in my opinion) wisely so.
It’s perhaps a philosophically interesting question. But scientifically intractable (at least currently), and as such, not worth engaging in beyond conjecture and a-priori analysis.
Toward the end of the book, Parrington discusses the impact of society on consciousness and human wellbeing. Parrington is critical of capitalism in a way that tips his hand regarding apparent socialist leanings.
Yet another reason I am partial to his perspective. I think he makes an excellent argument for the importance of social structure on our sense of self, and how we humans derive status, meaning and esteem. With the tacit implicature being that a better way must be possible. Particularly if we care about stuff like mental health, the environment, and survival.
I have to admit. I was (quite pleasantly) surprised by this perspective. As we sometimes say, if you poke a psychologist, a neophyte biologist appears. I guess that phenomenon runs the same on reverse. As we also say. Nothing in biology makes sense outside of theory of evolution via natural selection. And (I would add) the same can be said regarding psychology.
Great little book.
I’ve read a string of books on consciousness recently.
This one is my favorite so far.
5/5 stars ⭐️
Parrington criticizes David Chalmers assertion that consciousness is a special hard problem as idealist in nature. Additionally, Parrington assails panpsychism (the theoretical explanation most associated with Chalmers and colleagues), i.e., the theory that consciousness is a fundamental feature of matter (as opposed to an evolved trait), as implausible and lacking evidence.
Parrington is slightly more supportive of Danieal Dennett’s work on consciousness, as it is grounded in scientific materialism, and evolutionary theory, but criticizes Dennett’s theory that memetic reproduction as the engine of consciousness as also belonging to idealism.
Parrington is a biologist, and he is English. As such and as may be easily predicted, he’s VERY grounded in evolutionary theory. While he stops short of engaging in Chalmers hard question of consciousness debate. He does assert that consciousness is an evolved biological trait that confers survival benefits.
Parrington differentiates between other animal consciousness and human consciousness, based on uniquely human psychosocial factors, symbolic language and tool use.
Again, Parrington doesn’t attempt to explain subjective/phenomenological experiences via objective/positivistic analysis.
Parrington acknowledges that Chalmers is correct in his assertion that subjectivity is hard to explain via objective methods. However, Parrington is unwilling to concede that consciousness is in a special category, or is somehow not an emergent property of neurobiology. In other words. He refuses to take the bait and bite the hook on that one. And (in my opinion) wisely so.
It’s perhaps a philosophically interesting question. But scientifically intractable (at least currently), and as such, not worth engaging in beyond conjecture and a-priori analysis.
Toward the end of the book, Parrington discusses the impact of society on consciousness and human wellbeing. Parrington is critical of capitalism in a way that tips his hand regarding apparent socialist leanings.
Yet another reason I am partial to his perspective. I think he makes an excellent argument for the importance of social structure on our sense of self, and how we humans derive status, meaning and esteem. With the tacit implicature being that a better way must be possible. Particularly if we care about stuff like mental health, the environment, and survival.
I have to admit. I was (quite pleasantly) surprised by this perspective. As we sometimes say, if you poke a psychologist, a neophyte biologist appears. I guess that phenomenon runs the same on reverse. As we also say. Nothing in biology makes sense outside of theory of evolution via natural selection. And (I would add) the same can be said regarding psychology.
Great little book.
I’ve read a string of books on consciousness recently.
This one is my favorite so far.
5/5 stars ⭐️
January 31, 2024
What the fuck. I genuinely don't know what his goal was in writing this.
I went into this book expecting the author to say something about the hard problem of consciousness... Or about consciousness at all.
So my problem is.... I don't really think he said anything at all. It felt more like a random collection of facts and opinions followed by a critique of capitalism (but a very flawed one).
He had some good criticisms of other theorists.... He also had some terrible ones. I learned about some research I didn't know about previously. However, I also no longer trust this man to give it to me straight after his discussion of animal self awareness.
I don't feel like he laid out his trajectory at the beginning of this book well because every time he switched topics I felt curious as to where this could possibly be going... and then just disappointed. He kept saying he was building an argument so I followed him to the end blindly. Now I'm at the end and I don't really feel like he had a cohesive argument. When we got into the discussion of how tinder might theoretically influence us then I gave up. This was so wishy washy for something written by a guy who CONTINUOUSLY reminds us that he believes only material reality is real.
I know this isn't meant for an academic audience. But he doesn't really define what he means by consciousness. He doesn't really have a main thesis. He draws from disciplines he knows nothing about. He makes comparisons that when you think about them, make no sense... And the whole time he's doing this, hes using the smokescreen of criticizing/explaining other people's theories to make himself seem like an intelligent human being who is trying to make a point. He's like the Tin man, made up of a bunch of random parts but nothing inside.
I'm fine with him being a physicalist. But at least Koch is actually looking for an NCC Nueral correlate of consciousness. That makes sense to me. Koch has a theory about the physical structure of the brain and how it creates a conscious experience. And he's working on figuring out that relationship. I don't agree with him but at least he makes sense.
I went into this book expecting the author to say something about the hard problem of consciousness... Or about consciousness at all.
So my problem is.... I don't really think he said anything at all. It felt more like a random collection of facts and opinions followed by a critique of capitalism (but a very flawed one).
He had some good criticisms of other theorists.... He also had some terrible ones. I learned about some research I didn't know about previously. However, I also no longer trust this man to give it to me straight after his discussion of animal self awareness.
I don't feel like he laid out his trajectory at the beginning of this book well because every time he switched topics I felt curious as to where this could possibly be going... and then just disappointed. He kept saying he was building an argument so I followed him to the end blindly. Now I'm at the end and I don't really feel like he had a cohesive argument. When we got into the discussion of how tinder might theoretically influence us then I gave up. This was so wishy washy for something written by a guy who CONTINUOUSLY reminds us that he believes only material reality is real.
I know this isn't meant for an academic audience. But he doesn't really define what he means by consciousness. He doesn't really have a main thesis. He draws from disciplines he knows nothing about. He makes comparisons that when you think about them, make no sense... And the whole time he's doing this, hes using the smokescreen of criticizing/explaining other people's theories to make himself seem like an intelligent human being who is trying to make a point. He's like the Tin man, made up of a bunch of random parts but nothing inside.
I'm fine with him being a physicalist. But at least Koch is actually looking for an NCC Nueral correlate of consciousness. That makes sense to me. Koch has a theory about the physical structure of the brain and how it creates a conscious experience. And he's working on figuring out that relationship. I don't agree with him but at least he makes sense.
February 8, 2024
Parrington provides an introduction to a whole range of topics on the subject of consciousness and, while I struggled to identify a coherent, fully-fledged theory in this book, I enjoyed all the different insights into a wealth of different subjects. In terms of my own understanding, the main takeaways of the book seem to be the author's beliefs that language and tool-use are the main instigators of the evolution of human consciousness and that brain waves interacting between different brain regions is what causes a cohesive sense of self. However, I am still not entirely certain how these two theories are part of the same idea. The book felt more like a series of essays tied together loosely by the nature of their content. I actually really enjoyed this book but I am not convinced it set out to do what it intended.
March 10, 2025
This book started with fascinating introductory chapters, which included a revision of the basic physiology and references to a broad selection of texts from various fields. While the author continued to enlighten the reader with the ideas of many thinkers and researchers throughout the book, he did seem to lose his focus towards the end, as though he had hoped to find the answers as he wandered through related fields of study. Ultimately, I was left feeling that he had run out of time, but needed to submit the book for publishing, even without the expected, advanced definition of consciousness that he had been developing. In addition, two matters left me somewhat disappointed and with a feeling of having been patronised to a degree. Firstly, I was left a little uncomfortable by his approach to and suggested hypotheses on mental illness. This seemed quite outrageous when his references to this section appeared to me to be from less academic sources then those in most other parts of the book (Please correct me here, if I am being harsh, but The Guardian?). Secondly, I though it was unnecessary and distracting for the author on a somewhat academic subject to seem to feel the need to show a political leaning. I cannot speak for other readers, but I read topics based largely on empirical research like this partly to get away from the uninformed falseness of partisan politics. So, highly informative to an excellent level in parts, but could have been finished better!
September 7, 2025
Mostly works as a survey of contemporary neuroscience, but the author tries to ram-jam an argument about consciousness being demonstrably material that is poorly constructed and argued. The prime example is the author insisting that brain waves being an organizing force of thoughts and thought patterns evinces the material nature of consciousness itself; we are assured that it is surely so, even though earlier in the chapter the author explains that these brain waves are a result of patterned synaptic activity, implying effect rather than cause. The number of times I had to reread a sentence that began with "surely" to scan for its substance was very high. Not at all persuasive, even if at times informative.
May 4, 2024
Great formulation of problem but disappointedly short on solution.
November 15, 2024
Tbh i don't remember much, if not anything from this book but I recall general thoughts of "this was well written" and "that was interesting" so I'm gonna hazard a guess and say this deserved a 3
November 22, 2023
Consciousness provides what is the arguably biggest gap we have in our scientific knowledge. Unlike quantum physics or the detail of cell biology, this is a subject we all experience directly in our everyday lives. We know that we appear to be conscious. But what consciousness really means, if it exist at all and how it can be studied scientifically are all issues that science bumps up against repeatedly.
John Parrington starts us of with some basic background to the history of consciousness 'science' from Artistotle, through Descartes to the modern distinction between the understanding of mechanisms for how we sense, remember, react to stimulus and so forth and the 'hard problem' of explaining the subjective sense of being us and our feelings.
Parrington argues that our human-style consciousness, which he suggests is different from that of other animals, is a consequence of our use of language and our ability to use tools to radically transform our environment, combined with the unique complexity of our brain structure. On a simplistic level, some of this is often countered by, for instance, pointing out that other animals communicate or use simple tools. But Harrington convincingly shows that the unique nature of human language, for example, is a structure of abstract symbols that make it possible to convey complex ideas that simply don't arise in other species.
It should be stressed that Parrington is no dualist. He goes into some detail of how he sees the human brain is capable of providing all that is necessary for consciousness. He compares human brains to those of other species, describing how they differ both in functionality of different brain regions and how those regions interact. He also introduces some ideas on the relevance of brain waves to coordinating this functionality.
There's a fair amount in this book that arguably isn't really about consciousness, leaving some familiar topics only loosely covered. Parrington touches on some well-known consciousness theories and research - for example, Nagel's famous paper on what it is to be a bat - but does not give a view of the various opposing theories on consciousness (including those who say that there is no such thing). Similarly, free will only gets a fairly summary exploration. Instead, Parrington uses this compact book to put across his own viewpoint This isn't a bad thing, though in a book that purports to give an overview of a scientific topic it would have been good to have explored alternatives a little more. It's not unlike a book on string theory that says very little about loop quantum gravity.
Despite the reader being taken in a particular direction, though, this doesn't stop the book providing an interesting and thought-provoking exploration of consciousness that underlines human exceptionalism without suggesting the need for any non-physical component.
John Parrington starts us of with some basic background to the history of consciousness 'science' from Artistotle, through Descartes to the modern distinction between the understanding of mechanisms for how we sense, remember, react to stimulus and so forth and the 'hard problem' of explaining the subjective sense of being us and our feelings.
Parrington argues that our human-style consciousness, which he suggests is different from that of other animals, is a consequence of our use of language and our ability to use tools to radically transform our environment, combined with the unique complexity of our brain structure. On a simplistic level, some of this is often countered by, for instance, pointing out that other animals communicate or use simple tools. But Harrington convincingly shows that the unique nature of human language, for example, is a structure of abstract symbols that make it possible to convey complex ideas that simply don't arise in other species.
It should be stressed that Parrington is no dualist. He goes into some detail of how he sees the human brain is capable of providing all that is necessary for consciousness. He compares human brains to those of other species, describing how they differ both in functionality of different brain regions and how those regions interact. He also introduces some ideas on the relevance of brain waves to coordinating this functionality.
There's a fair amount in this book that arguably isn't really about consciousness, leaving some familiar topics only loosely covered. Parrington touches on some well-known consciousness theories and research - for example, Nagel's famous paper on what it is to be a bat - but does not give a view of the various opposing theories on consciousness (including those who say that there is no such thing). Similarly, free will only gets a fairly summary exploration. Instead, Parrington uses this compact book to put across his own viewpoint This isn't a bad thing, though in a book that purports to give an overview of a scientific topic it would have been good to have explored alternatives a little more. It's not unlike a book on string theory that says very little about loop quantum gravity.
Despite the reader being taken in a particular direction, though, this doesn't stop the book providing an interesting and thought-provoking exploration of consciousness that underlines human exceptionalism without suggesting the need for any non-physical component.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews