What do you think?
Rate this book
The MIT Press Essential Knowledge
العقل الواعي
يستكشف هذا الكتاب تطوُّر العقل البشري؛ حيث يرى المؤلِّف أن الوعي ليس صفة مكتسَبة حديثًا، بل هو عنصر أساسي لا غِنى عنه في آليَّة عمل النظام الحي. يتتبَّع المؤلِّف تطوُّر الوعي، بدايةً من أصوله في دماغ الحيوان، إلى شكله الحالي عند البشر، ويرى أن الوعي ضروريٌّ لقدرتنا على فَهم أنفسنا وفَهم العالَم من حولنا. يُعَد هذا الكتاب مساهمةً مهمة في مجال دراسات الوعي؛ حيث يقدِّم نظرة شاملة ومبسَّطة على الوضع الراهن لمعرفتنا بالوعي، ويعرض منظورًا جديدًا لتطوُّر هذه القدرة البشرية الأساسية.
136 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 2014
About the author
Zoltan Torey
4 books5 followersThe late Zoltan Torey was a clinical psychologist and independent scholar and the author of The Crucible of Consciousness: An Integrated Theory of Mind and Brain (MIT Press).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
March 30, 2019
This is the one book to read on consciousness. I’m not a neuroscientist, so I can’t evaluate all the detailed claims in this book. As Torey himself acknowledges, the science is controversial, and the science behind each chapter deserves at least a book by itself.
But the takeaway is not contingent on Torey getting all the details right. While we still don’t have the exact details of every brain function, there is no reason to believe there is anything mysterious about the mind. There is a simple model that explains and integrates all the main findings of neurology, psychology, linguistics and introspection. Consciousness, language and freedom of choice are not something that transcend the physical brain; they are are the output of functional subsystems of that brain. These evolved in humans and enabled us to access, imagine and evaluate different pre-generated possible actions.
Torey explains how this system works, how it evolved and how it differs in humans compared to other animals. He clears up the confusion between what should properly be called consciousness, and other forms of awareness. He explains how consciousness depends on the development of language and syntax, and thus argues that consciousness is a purely human phenomena. And he show how this model accounts for our functional autonomy, the freedom we seem to have.
He also shows how this model predicts exactly the mental illusions we observe in ourselves and others. Such a creature would have the impression of an observer alongside what is observed, would notice thoughts popping into consciousness fully formed, and would see these thoughts as the cause of the subsequent actions. It would see itself as an uncaused causal agent, an immortal and transcendent soul in charge of a physical body.
We are physical animals that have evolved the abilities to use language, monitor the senses, imagine sense-impressions that are not present, evaluate and choose between different actions, form mental models and theories of the world, and think about their own nature and place in the world. There is still much to be learned. But there is no mystery to be solved.
But the takeaway is not contingent on Torey getting all the details right. While we still don’t have the exact details of every brain function, there is no reason to believe there is anything mysterious about the mind. There is a simple model that explains and integrates all the main findings of neurology, psychology, linguistics and introspection. Consciousness, language and freedom of choice are not something that transcend the physical brain; they are are the output of functional subsystems of that brain. These evolved in humans and enabled us to access, imagine and evaluate different pre-generated possible actions.
Torey explains how this system works, how it evolved and how it differs in humans compared to other animals. He clears up the confusion between what should properly be called consciousness, and other forms of awareness. He explains how consciousness depends on the development of language and syntax, and thus argues that consciousness is a purely human phenomena. And he show how this model accounts for our functional autonomy, the freedom we seem to have.
He also shows how this model predicts exactly the mental illusions we observe in ourselves and others. Such a creature would have the impression of an observer alongside what is observed, would notice thoughts popping into consciousness fully formed, and would see these thoughts as the cause of the subsequent actions. It would see itself as an uncaused causal agent, an immortal and transcendent soul in charge of a physical body.
We are physical animals that have evolved the abilities to use language, monitor the senses, imagine sense-impressions that are not present, evaluate and choose between different actions, form mental models and theories of the world, and think about their own nature and place in the world. There is still much to be learned. But there is no mystery to be solved.
February 22, 2015
Excellent and accessible story of how consciousness and mind emerged from animal awareness. I find that this study along with the book Incomplete Nature which I finished a few months earlier are the best yet conceptualizations of this process of development/emergence. Highly recommended. I want to eventually attempt his The Crucible of Consciousness: An Integrated Theory of Mind and Brain although it sounds rather dense and academic.
April 22, 2021
Not a bad little 'introduction' book to some issues in the cognitive sciences. I was happily surprised that this introduction book was not bogged down with all of the typical philosophy of mind but some actual 'cognitive science'.
September 1, 2023
Solid introduction to neuro-minded theories of consciousness.
Much like the Joker, the author’s origin story is being permanently wounded by a vat of acid. Following a similar trajectory as the Joker, he attempts to make a physicalist argument about consciousness without being as anti-fun (he tries to square the circle of determinism and free will). The basic argument, that the neural substrates of consciousness are an “offline system” that is largely instantiated by the development of language (that he sees as a qualitative leap entirely unique to humanity) via language’s development in the same region of the brain that processes gestures. This implies the language originates with gestures and proprioception. After this relatively widely accepted point, he begins his narrative overstatement of his own claims.
He states that the self originates almost entirely out of proprioception giving us the sense that we are doing things we are doing. This eventually becomes an internal model of “the self” that is similar to our internal model of the external world. This latter model is held by all complex organisms, but he states that the former requires speech and therefore only exists in humans. How the self awareness of dolphins or whales fits into this is not addressed. His view of the self starts reductionist with the intent of building towards a more rich view of self that is normally allowed by physicalist accounts.
Language is the center of his argument, that all human consciousness is created and mediated by language. This is an inoffensive point that is made using good evidence that doesn’t really add up to the actual claim itself. The idea that we hold attention by switching between attending to an object and the word (or concept) is an interesting way of getting around the human ability to seemingly manipulate internal representations w/o language.
This overstatement is really the core of any issues I had with the book, the other overstated claims are mostly easily brushed aside as rhetorical flourishes. His references to Damasio consistently remind the reader that Damasio is a more interesting thinker. However, if you wanted something along the lines of a scientific story of human consciousness, McGilchrist’s book is significantly more fun, if a bit more of a stretch.
His argument against the possibility of computer consciousness is frankly strange given his physicalism, but it’s at the very least more bearable than the philosophically minded attempts at this argument that lapse into bizarre biological or human essentialisms from individuals who have no interest in understanding biology. His argument against quaila as a concept is good enough and does point out how silly and solipsistic most arguments relying on qualia as a sort of mystical thing existing above any neural substrates. Always nice to see mystics like Chalmers get dunked on.
Much like the Joker, the author’s origin story is being permanently wounded by a vat of acid. Following a similar trajectory as the Joker, he attempts to make a physicalist argument about consciousness without being as anti-fun (he tries to square the circle of determinism and free will). The basic argument, that the neural substrates of consciousness are an “offline system” that is largely instantiated by the development of language (that he sees as a qualitative leap entirely unique to humanity) via language’s development in the same region of the brain that processes gestures. This implies the language originates with gestures and proprioception. After this relatively widely accepted point, he begins his narrative overstatement of his own claims.
He states that the self originates almost entirely out of proprioception giving us the sense that we are doing things we are doing. This eventually becomes an internal model of “the self” that is similar to our internal model of the external world. This latter model is held by all complex organisms, but he states that the former requires speech and therefore only exists in humans. How the self awareness of dolphins or whales fits into this is not addressed. His view of the self starts reductionist with the intent of building towards a more rich view of self that is normally allowed by physicalist accounts.
Language is the center of his argument, that all human consciousness is created and mediated by language. This is an inoffensive point that is made using good evidence that doesn’t really add up to the actual claim itself. The idea that we hold attention by switching between attending to an object and the word (or concept) is an interesting way of getting around the human ability to seemingly manipulate internal representations w/o language.
This overstatement is really the core of any issues I had with the book, the other overstated claims are mostly easily brushed aside as rhetorical flourishes. His references to Damasio consistently remind the reader that Damasio is a more interesting thinker. However, if you wanted something along the lines of a scientific story of human consciousness, McGilchrist’s book is significantly more fun, if a bit more of a stretch.
His argument against the possibility of computer consciousness is frankly strange given his physicalism, but it’s at the very least more bearable than the philosophically minded attempts at this argument that lapse into bizarre biological or human essentialisms from individuals who have no interest in understanding biology. His argument against quaila as a concept is good enough and does point out how silly and solipsistic most arguments relying on qualia as a sort of mystical thing existing above any neural substrates. Always nice to see mystics like Chalmers get dunked on.
April 18, 2021
What the
Very disappointing. A work of this kind should surely contain a brief summary of current work and views. Instead we get a rolling fluffy wordy personal theory about all and everything. Not even a theory. Not the ‘model I am proposing’ we keep hearing about. Just a farrago of suggestive concepts explaining almost nothing.
The real questions are arrogantly dismissed as nonsense in a way that shows a complete lack of understanding and an almost desperate craven need to capitulate to physical orthodoxy.
And then he waxes philosophical about the singularity and universal history. Give me a break. That’s a good hour I’m not getting back.
Very disappointing. A work of this kind should surely contain a brief summary of current work and views. Instead we get a rolling fluffy wordy personal theory about all and everything. Not even a theory. Not the ‘model I am proposing’ we keep hearing about. Just a farrago of suggestive concepts explaining almost nothing.
The real questions are arrogantly dismissed as nonsense in a way that shows a complete lack of understanding and an almost desperate craven need to capitulate to physical orthodoxy.
And then he waxes philosophical about the singularity and universal history. Give me a break. That’s a good hour I’m not getting back.
November 14, 2016
A really brilliant (and that's not just my opinion) short book detailing a theory of how the brain became aware of itself and developed into a self-reflective mind with the capacity to monitor and thus withhold response, i.e., the development of (limited) free-will. And it's beautifully and mostly fully-comprehensibly written to boot!
March 5, 2023
Interesting ideas. Essentially the book proposes that acquisition of language caused the existence of mental images and allowed for retaining attention on one object/concept for a while, and reflection about it. Finally this extends to the reflection about the person themself, resulting in consciousness. It also follows that brain is in this way aware only of a part of processing related to currently handled imagery, and that the rest (senses, associative machine, brain stem etc) are out of conscious reach. For that reason we have the sense of agency, which actually does not exist when entire brain is taken into account.
The problem with the book is that explanations are high with recurrent or self-referenced statements and circular arguments, jumping between wildly different conceptual levels like basic signalling and reflection. Author manages to express the idea but fails to derive it from first principles without circular reasoning and convincingly explain what and how is going on. The presentation language aspires to appear learned, but due to lack of rigour it ends up sounding quite pseudoscientific.
The core idea is impossible to falsify and will stay so for a long time. Nevertheless, it claims things that others have also found plausible, which hints that it may be onto something. E.g. Chomsky and Pinker wrote about DNA-coded language instinct hardwired into the brain, Kahneman writes about System 1 (associative machine) and System 2 (rational mind), Deutsch claims that conscious mind is a universal computer because that follows from information theory, and Popper that we understand others' ideas by conjecturing/criticizing their meaning. Lots of others got bogged down on matters of language, indicating its importance for rationality.
So maybe what I will take away from this is that jump to computational universality which humans made correlates with development of language and might also be causally linked. Also that inaccessibility of majority of brain's activity to conscious part might be the cause of impression of free-will agency, as well as that consciousness could just be the ability to reflect on oneself.
The problem with the book is that explanations are high with recurrent or self-referenced statements and circular arguments, jumping between wildly different conceptual levels like basic signalling and reflection. Author manages to express the idea but fails to derive it from first principles without circular reasoning and convincingly explain what and how is going on. The presentation language aspires to appear learned, but due to lack of rigour it ends up sounding quite pseudoscientific.
The core idea is impossible to falsify and will stay so for a long time. Nevertheless, it claims things that others have also found plausible, which hints that it may be onto something. E.g. Chomsky and Pinker wrote about DNA-coded language instinct hardwired into the brain, Kahneman writes about System 1 (associative machine) and System 2 (rational mind), Deutsch claims that conscious mind is a universal computer because that follows from information theory, and Popper that we understand others' ideas by conjecturing/criticizing their meaning. Lots of others got bogged down on matters of language, indicating its importance for rationality.
So maybe what I will take away from this is that jump to computational universality which humans made correlates with development of language and might also be causally linked. Also that inaccessibility of majority of brain's activity to conscious part might be the cause of impression of free-will agency, as well as that consciousness could just be the ability to reflect on oneself.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 28, 2020
The author accomplished his goal of presenting a brief introduction of the conscious mind. He touches on a number of subjects meant to help us understand our physical self and our penchant for free will. He looks at language, the brain, and truly causes us to understand what our self means.
July 4, 2021
This is not a book that teaches you much, but it definitely presents some interesting ideas and thought-provoking questions. Although some concepts here can be thought of as "dense" or "hard," this book is short and very easy to follow. It was an enjoyable read.
February 28, 2024
This is an accessible and engrossing entry in the broad range of popular layperson literature available on consciousness, mind and brain.
The late Zoltan Torey was a physicalist, and he presents in this short MIT Press book a summary of his model that explains the development and operation of awareness, subjective self-awareness, and language - and the reason these attributes give rise to our experience of reflexive consciousness and free will (and what he thinks this actually is i.e. "functional autonomy" predicated on the relationship between the option-creating cortex and the preconscious decision-making brainstem in a cause-and-effect universe).
Personally, I find the key aspects of Torey's model reasonably compelling, maybe because I'm largely a physicalist myself and never fully bought in to the hard problem of consciousness (and associated zombie thought experiments) nor the red herrings of qualia.
That said, I don't think I necessarily sign up to all of Torey's contentions (e.g. that his concept of consciousness ["Consciousness 2" i.e. reflective consciousness], to be distinguished from Consciousness 1 [non-reflective animal awareness]) is completely language and language-module dependent and therefore excludes animals).
And like most books of this sort The Conscious Mind is focused on presenting a set of theoretical premises that are argued without sufficient evidence nor suggested experiments to test the model. But this short book provided a lot of food for thought that I will continue to reflect on for some time. I would like to see what other key thinkers in consciousness studies have made of Torey's approach to addressing many of the 'apparent' contradictions in consciousness (sense of self authorship, qualia, etc) and planting them firmly in a coherent and self-contained physicalist model.
Some familiarity with the key concepts and major theories in consciousness studies would be useful to anyone wishing to engage with this book.
The late Zoltan Torey was a physicalist, and he presents in this short MIT Press book a summary of his model that explains the development and operation of awareness, subjective self-awareness, and language - and the reason these attributes give rise to our experience of reflexive consciousness and free will (and what he thinks this actually is i.e. "functional autonomy" predicated on the relationship between the option-creating cortex and the preconscious decision-making brainstem in a cause-and-effect universe).
Personally, I find the key aspects of Torey's model reasonably compelling, maybe because I'm largely a physicalist myself and never fully bought in to the hard problem of consciousness (and associated zombie thought experiments) nor the red herrings of qualia.
That said, I don't think I necessarily sign up to all of Torey's contentions (e.g. that his concept of consciousness ["Consciousness 2" i.e. reflective consciousness], to be distinguished from Consciousness 1 [non-reflective animal awareness]) is completely language and language-module dependent and therefore excludes animals).
And like most books of this sort The Conscious Mind is focused on presenting a set of theoretical premises that are argued without sufficient evidence nor suggested experiments to test the model. But this short book provided a lot of food for thought that I will continue to reflect on for some time. I would like to see what other key thinkers in consciousness studies have made of Torey's approach to addressing many of the 'apparent' contradictions in consciousness (sense of self authorship, qualia, etc) and planting them firmly in a coherent and self-contained physicalist model.
Some familiarity with the key concepts and major theories in consciousness studies would be useful to anyone wishing to engage with this book.
January 25, 2020
This is not one of the better books I’ve read on the topic of consciousness, for three reasons: (1) Unlike Free Will, Mark Balaguer’s book in the same MIT series, The Conscious Mind is written in a style that doesn’t show much respect for others’ ideas, (2) is riddled with assumptions and poor logic, and (3) makes bold claims that the pages contain answers to many very difficult problems that have eluded other great minds, but I was unsatisfied with any of the attempts.
The book has a very strong focus on language, and disparages animal communication in contrast to human language, which he calls ‘a device of "cognitive bootstrapping” with which the brain can guide itself.’ (page 30)
On the topic of free will, the author claims that we are aware of our options but unaware of decisions made by the brainstem, that we are essentially observers of the inputs and outputs to an unconscious decision-making process:
“The mind-equipped brain’s impression that it initiates, wills, and decides is, therefore, the traceable misconstruction of the thinking machine that has only half the data to go on: the action alternatives it itself is generating. The other half, the brain stem’s decision-making, is inaccessible and therefore unknown to it. Aware of the options it is generating and that one of these is always implemented, the mind concludes that it is all its own doing. Without evidence to the contrary and insight into the brainstem’s decision role, the misconstruction remains unchallenged, and the mind presumes that it has entelechy-type of freedom.” (pages 112-113)
The book has a very strong focus on language, and disparages animal communication in contrast to human language, which he calls ‘a device of "cognitive bootstrapping” with which the brain can guide itself.’ (page 30)
On the topic of free will, the author claims that we are aware of our options but unaware of decisions made by the brainstem, that we are essentially observers of the inputs and outputs to an unconscious decision-making process:
“The mind-equipped brain’s impression that it initiates, wills, and decides is, therefore, the traceable misconstruction of the thinking machine that has only half the data to go on: the action alternatives it itself is generating. The other half, the brain stem’s decision-making, is inaccessible and therefore unknown to it. Aware of the options it is generating and that one of these is always implemented, the mind concludes that it is all its own doing. Without evidence to the contrary and insight into the brainstem’s decision role, the misconstruction remains unchallenged, and the mind presumes that it has entelechy-type of freedom.” (pages 112-113)
July 8, 2020
As other reviewers stated, the book is, indeed, dry and loaded with jargon. It does not make it overly complicated to read however, given the size of the volume.
While the model by which the emergence of the conscious mind is quite well explained and interesting, certain subjects seem to be simply dismissed as self-evident or not worth getting even curious about. For instance, the possibility of computer-based consciousness is refuted in an unsatisfying manner, involving qualia. Qualia then lead to the question whether one may experience the colour red as someone else experience the colour blue. Again, rather quickly dismissive of philosophy, this age-old paradox is quickly solved by some logic involving wavelengths and sunshines/sunsets. This was, again, very unsatisfactory and written in such a cut and dry manner that I was doubting myself a lot for not comprehending the irrefutable logic that was supposedly presented before me.
This being said, the model proposed is worth reading about and seems to be more rigorous than the AI/qualia segments. It is an interesting read and deserves attention. However, the tone used made me very defensive and sceptical, given that it was written as a set of absolute facts proved by logic and with a level of certainty that is not so common in science. Everything seemed as if they were true by definition.
While the model by which the emergence of the conscious mind is quite well explained and interesting, certain subjects seem to be simply dismissed as self-evident or not worth getting even curious about. For instance, the possibility of computer-based consciousness is refuted in an unsatisfying manner, involving qualia. Qualia then lead to the question whether one may experience the colour red as someone else experience the colour blue. Again, rather quickly dismissive of philosophy, this age-old paradox is quickly solved by some logic involving wavelengths and sunshines/sunsets. This was, again, very unsatisfactory and written in such a cut and dry manner that I was doubting myself a lot for not comprehending the irrefutable logic that was supposedly presented before me.
This being said, the model proposed is worth reading about and seems to be more rigorous than the AI/qualia segments. It is an interesting read and deserves attention. However, the tone used made me very defensive and sceptical, given that it was written as a set of absolute facts proved by logic and with a level of certainty that is not so common in science. Everything seemed as if they were true by definition.
September 22, 2025
يتناول الكتاب موضوعا علميا بالغ الاهمية، وهو علاقة الدماغ بالوعي. يرى المؤلف ان الدماغ، باعتباره مادة، هو الذي يولد الوعي والإدراك لدى الانسان، وهي خاصية تميزه عن باقي الكائنات. ويرجع الكاتب احدى ابرز دلائل هذا الوعي إلى اللغة، معتبرا انها لم تكن فطرية ولا وجدت بآلية جاهزة في الدماغ، بل اكتسبت عبر الاف السنين نتيجة حاجة الإنسان الى التواصل، وهو ما يدافع عنه في الفصل الثالث بما يسميه احتفاظ الانسان العاقل بسمات طفولية ساعدت على تطوير مشابك عصبية جديدة مكنته من بناء لغة اكثر تعقيدا من تلك التي استعملها الاسان المنتصب الذي اكتفى بالاشارات او كلمات محدودة. غير ان هذا الطرح يظل مفتقدا الى ادلة تاريخية او اثرية واضحة، اذ لم يحدد الكاتب كيف توصل الى هذا الاستنتاج.
كما يتحدث الكاتب في الفصول الموالية عن العقل، والارادة الحرة للانسان التي يعتبرها نسبية ومقيدة بالتفاعلات الدماغية البيولوجية. لكني ام استوعب هذه الفكرة جيدا.
رغم القيمة العلمية للكتاب الا انه يظل اقرب الى طرح تفسيري عام يثير التفكير اكثر مما يقدم براهين علمية قاطعة، خاصة فيما يتعلق بمسألة انكاره وجود خالق للكون. فهو يعزو كل مظاهر التعقيد، من قدرات الانسان العقلية والدماغية، التي تضم مليارات الخلايا والمشابك العصبية، الى القوانين الكونية الدقيقة، والمجرات والنجوم التي لا تحصى، الى التطور وحده. وانا ارى ان هذا التفسير غير كاف، لان وجود نظام كوني محكم يستدعي الايمان بوجود خالق للقوانين التي تنظمه.
كما يتحدث الكاتب في الفصول الموالية عن العقل، والارادة الحرة للانسان التي يعتبرها نسبية ومقيدة بالتفاعلات الدماغية البيولوجية. لكني ام استوعب هذه الفكرة جيدا.
رغم القيمة العلمية للكتاب الا انه يظل اقرب الى طرح تفسيري عام يثير التفكير اكثر مما يقدم براهين علمية قاطعة، خاصة فيما يتعلق بمسألة انكاره وجود خالق للكون. فهو يعزو كل مظاهر التعقيد، من قدرات الانسان العقلية والدماغية، التي تضم مليارات الخلايا والمشابك العصبية، الى القوانين الكونية الدقيقة، والمجرات والنجوم التي لا تحصى، الى التطور وحده. وانا ارى ان هذا التفسير غير كاف، لان وجود نظام كوني محكم يستدعي الايمان بوجود خالق للقوانين التي تنظمه.
June 21, 2026
اي كتاب عن العقل يستهويني
أحب هذه الكتب التي تتحدث عنأهم خصائص الإنسان التي تفرقه عن الحياوانت وأي مخلوقات أخري
في هذا الكتاب يكرس المؤلف جهوده للحديث عن الوعي
الوعي متي بدأ وكيف نشأوعي الإنسان بذاته وبمن حوله؟
يجول المؤلف في ميدان علم التطور وعلم النفس التطوري للحديث عن موضوع الوعي
حاول المؤلف الحديث عن نشأة اللغة، فاللغة هي التي أحدثت الفروق الهائلة في الوعي والإدراكبين الإنسان وغيره من المخلوقات
كيف نشأت اللغة؟
اللغة لم تنشأ يبصورة تطورية يمكن إعادة جذورها الأولي إلي اللغات البدائية أو الأصوات التي تصدرها القردة العليا.
اللغة كما توصل العلم نشأت بعيدا تماماعنطريق التطور
كأنها ذات منشأ خارجي مستقل تماما
الكتاب عموما محتاج تركيز
أحب هذه الكتب التي تتحدث عنأهم خصائص الإنسان التي تفرقه عن الحياوانت وأي مخلوقات أخري
في هذا الكتاب يكرس المؤلف جهوده للحديث عن الوعي
الوعي متي بدأ وكيف نشأوعي الإنسان بذاته وبمن حوله؟
يجول المؤلف في ميدان علم التطور وعلم النفس التطوري للحديث عن موضوع الوعي
حاول المؤلف الحديث عن نشأة اللغة، فاللغة هي التي أحدثت الفروق الهائلة في الوعي والإدراكبين الإنسان وغيره من المخلوقات
كيف نشأت اللغة؟
اللغة لم تنشأ يبصورة تطورية يمكن إعادة جذورها الأولي إلي اللغات البدائية أو الأصوات التي تصدرها القردة العليا.
اللغة كما توصل العلم نشأت بعيدا تماماعنطريق التطور
كأنها ذات منشأ خارجي مستقل تماما
الكتاب عموما محتاج تركيز
November 11, 2023
This was like riding a neuroscience rollercoaster of introspection defying boundaries with philosophy!
We have feelings and thoughts powered by brain areas, but we also have "awareness" area watching the other areas**. The whole thing is somewhat "recorded" allowing us to introspect and the ecosystem of this is speculated to be the "consciousness".
**apparently, this is where humans started being humans.
The writing style challenged me, and I think the wording could be simpler. If you are thinking of reading this book, you should be prepared.
We have feelings and thoughts powered by brain areas, but we also have "awareness" area watching the other areas**. The whole thing is somewhat "recorded" allowing us to introspect and the ecosystem of this is speculated to be the "consciousness".
**apparently, this is where humans started being humans.
The writing style challenged me, and I think the wording could be simpler. If you are thinking of reading this book, you should be prepared.
April 27, 2024
This book offers a succinct yet thorough examination of our current understanding of consciousness, which, as the author aptly notes, remains elusive. Covering topics such as language, qualia, free will, and evolution, the author provides a foundational exploration accessible to readers at all levels.
May 26, 2020
Maybe it is a good book but for me it was a difficult one. I didn't understand much.
Read
July 27, 2024Hard to follow in places. I need more background.
December 11, 2024
Interesting read, learned quite a lot. Thoroughly enjoyed the first half where he talked about the development of thought, language, and self reflection and the arguments of how this may evolutionarily came about. It became a slog to read after that part.
September 21, 2024
When I was an young kid, like many others, questions about consciousness would tease me mysteriously for a few years until I grew up and forgot about them. Torey tries to answer these big questions *with science*: what is consciousness, why and when did it arise, do we have free will (and why do we feel like we do)?
His answer blends together learnings from disparate fields like evolutionary biology, neuroscience, linguistics. In the end he builds a model which is meant to explain in broad strokes what consciousness is, according to him, this problem is done and dusted - but readers by virtue of their possession of consciousness are very qualified to be the judge of his success.
I quite like the structure of his writing, he is not afraid to define new terms to explain his new concepts (reflective thinking as an "off-line" system while perception is "online"). This makes things a bit clearer to follow. There are a lot of block quotes and references interspersed throughout which is useful.Sometimes his writing is a bit dense and flowery eg. "the present and objectified character of our perceived world is, then, the precondition of our word-assisted handling of it".
The best parts of the book is the first half, where he gives some sort of overview of the development of thought, self reflection, language with lots of evolutionary arguments and comparisons to other animals made. The second half devolves into a strange arrogant rambling about how this book solves the mysteries of consciousness and "leaves no gaps for gods or for mythological narratives". For most readers, however, I struggle to believe that they have learnt anything revolutionary. Knowing that the basal ganglia selectively disinhibits the thalamic nuclei doesn't really do much most people.
His answer blends together learnings from disparate fields like evolutionary biology, neuroscience, linguistics. In the end he builds a model which is meant to explain in broad strokes what consciousness is, according to him, this problem is done and dusted - but readers by virtue of their possession of consciousness are very qualified to be the judge of his success.
I quite like the structure of his writing, he is not afraid to define new terms to explain his new concepts (reflective thinking as an "off-line" system while perception is "online"). This makes things a bit clearer to follow. There are a lot of block quotes and references interspersed throughout which is useful.Sometimes his writing is a bit dense and flowery eg. "the present and objectified character of our perceived world is, then, the precondition of our word-assisted handling of it".
The best parts of the book is the first half, where he gives some sort of overview of the development of thought, self reflection, language with lots of evolutionary arguments and comparisons to other animals made. The second half devolves into a strange arrogant rambling about how this book solves the mysteries of consciousness and "leaves no gaps for gods or for mythological narratives". For most readers, however, I struggle to believe that they have learnt anything revolutionary. Knowing that the basal ganglia selectively disinhibits the thalamic nuclei doesn't really do much most people.
July 16, 2015
So many things in this book brought up issues, and in the end I never felt in openly and honestly addressed the true origin of conscious development in the human species.
Stating that we 'gained' or 'acquired' certain capabilities in the mind without any theory or information to back it up, left me with a very empty feeling and once again the belief that science, or what passes for it, will always be lacking in search for an explanation to the development of self-conscious awareness, it's function and uses.
To that end, I have been investigating and coming up with better answers on my own, which I will publish in due time, under the title 'Illuminating the Disconnect.'
It may just be a question in need of little in the way of answer, but more in the way of how to only understand enough to know and accept what it is and how it works within us at being integrated into our being in a way that enables us to experience a joyful life, within the context of all life around us.
There were some good basic points made in this book, by Zoltan, about the simple mechanism of the levels of consciousness and how they relate to living, but nothing new from what I read.
Stating that we 'gained' or 'acquired' certain capabilities in the mind without any theory or information to back it up, left me with a very empty feeling and once again the belief that science, or what passes for it, will always be lacking in search for an explanation to the development of self-conscious awareness, it's function and uses.
To that end, I have been investigating and coming up with better answers on my own, which I will publish in due time, under the title 'Illuminating the Disconnect.'
It may just be a question in need of little in the way of answer, but more in the way of how to only understand enough to know and accept what it is and how it works within us at being integrated into our being in a way that enables us to experience a joyful life, within the context of all life around us.
There were some good basic points made in this book, by Zoltan, about the simple mechanism of the levels of consciousness and how they relate to living, but nothing new from what I read.
June 1, 2023
from a great series of books by MIT Press, this guy is a good writer
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews