What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of the Mind: Evolution and the Birth of Consciousness
This book is a tour-de-force on how human consciousness may have evolved. From the "phantom pain" experienced by people who have lost their limbs to the uncanny faculty of "blindsight," Humphrey argues that raw sensations are central to all conscious states and that consciousness must have evolved, just like all other mental faculties, over time from our ancestors'bodily responses to pain and pleasure.
"Humphrey is one of that growing band of scientists who beat literary folk at their own game"-RICHARD DAWKINS
"A wonderful bookbrilliant, unsettling, and beautifully written. Humphrey cuts bravely through the currents of contemporary thinking, opening up new vistas on old problems offering a feast of provocative ideas." -DANIEL DENNETT
"Humphrey is one of that growing band of scientists who beat literary folk at their own game"-RICHARD DAWKINS
"A wonderful bookbrilliant, unsettling, and beautifully written. Humphrey cuts bravely through the currents of contemporary thinking, opening up new vistas on old problems offering a feast of provocative ideas." -DANIEL DENNETT
238 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
48 people are currently reading
944 people want to read
About the author
Nicholas Humphrey
43 books67 followersNicholas Keynes Humphrey is an English neuropsychologist based in Cambridge, known for his work on evolution of primate intelligence and consciousness. He studied mountain gorillas with Dian Fossey in Rwanda; he was the first to demonstrate the existence of "blindsight" after brain damage in monkeys; he proposed the theory of the "social function of intellect". He is the only scientist to have edited the literary journal Granta.
Humphrey played a significant role in the anti-nuclear movement in the late 1970s and delivered the BBC Bronowski memorial lecture titled "Four Minutes to Midnight" in 1981.
His 10 books include Consciousness Regained, The Inner Eye, A History of the Mind, Leaps of Faith, The Mind Made Flesh, Seeing Red, and Soul Dust. He has received several honours, including the Martin Luther King Memorial Prize, the Pufendorf Medal and the British Psychological Society's book award.
He has been lecturer in psychology at Oxford, assistant director of the Subdepartment of Animal Behaviour at Cambridge, senior research fellow at Cambridge, professor of psychology at the New School for Social Research, New York, and school professor at the London School of Economics.
Humphrey played a significant role in the anti-nuclear movement in the late 1970s and delivered the BBC Bronowski memorial lecture titled "Four Minutes to Midnight" in 1981.
His 10 books include Consciousness Regained, The Inner Eye, A History of the Mind, Leaps of Faith, The Mind Made Flesh, Seeing Red, and Soul Dust. He has received several honours, including the Martin Luther King Memorial Prize, the Pufendorf Medal and the British Psychological Society's book award.
He has been lecturer in psychology at Oxford, assistant director of the Subdepartment of Animal Behaviour at Cambridge, senior research fellow at Cambridge, professor of psychology at the New School for Social Research, New York, and school professor at the London School of Economics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
March 10, 2015
Humphrey's thesis is, so far as I can recall it, that mind arises from physical sensation, interior and exterior, inclusive of emotion. This thesis is played off against evolutionary theory with speculation about how higher orders of abstraction from primary sensation were selected.
October 24, 2007
He's got a lot of good things to say; however, I'm having a tough time buying the argument for the parallel nature of perception and sensation. I'd be curious if anyone else had a similar issue. Even with BH's "experimental" support of this theory, it is difficult for me not to believe that perception is an analysis of sensation.
On the other hand, his idea of a feedback loop not only solves the nesting dolls problem, but also goes a long way towards explaing the you-have-it-or-you-don't nature of consciousness.
I would love to hear from anyone else who has read this book.
On the other hand, his idea of a feedback loop not only solves the nesting dolls problem, but also goes a long way towards explaing the you-have-it-or-you-don't nature of consciousness.
I would love to hear from anyone else who has read this book.
March 20, 2017
In 1992 Nicholas Humphrey followed his ground-breaking book 'The Inner Eye' with an equally brilliant work, 'A History Of The Mind.' The thesis behind this work was that the link between our experience of the mind and its physical place in our bodies can be explained: there is a solution to the mind-body problem. Humphrey in this book tells a tale of evolution, of sensations being related to two distinct experiences – the outside world and the body itself – and of the development of his evolutionary theory of the appearance of mind.
The book is set in twenty nine sections. Humphrey deals with the problem he faces; with the vital importance of physical boundaries to living creatures – me and not-me; with the evolution of the eye as an example of sensory perception, but with the proviso that perception and sensation may not be mutually exclusive; with blindness and blindsight; sensation as “copying” and perception as “storytelling”; five senses; sensory loops; thoughts on how our external surfaces (eg skin) may not be involved in sensations; inner models as substitutes for the real body… and then a new theory of consciousness based on what has gone before.
Many other philosophers have walked this path. In an ironic introduction, Humphrey acknowledges the importance of Daniel Dennett to his work, remarking that, since the two don’t agree on certain points of the theory, “he may sometimes have thought he had introduced a cuckoo to his nest.” Humphrey would later write more about his ideas in the somewhat challenging Seeing Red.
What’s great about this book though is how Humphrey proceeds from the evolutionary perspective (consciousness matters to human beings – it must therefore have a fundamental purpose), using biology, philosophy and the backbone of the ideas presented in 'The Inner Eye' as jumping off points. The book does have a nuts-and-bolts feel to it, in contrast to 'The Inner Eye,' which has more of a sweeping grandeur – not that the final chapters of 'A History Of The Mind' don’t have their own grand rewards. Another wonderful work.
The book is set in twenty nine sections. Humphrey deals with the problem he faces; with the vital importance of physical boundaries to living creatures – me and not-me; with the evolution of the eye as an example of sensory perception, but with the proviso that perception and sensation may not be mutually exclusive; with blindness and blindsight; sensation as “copying” and perception as “storytelling”; five senses; sensory loops; thoughts on how our external surfaces (eg skin) may not be involved in sensations; inner models as substitutes for the real body… and then a new theory of consciousness based on what has gone before.
Many other philosophers have walked this path. In an ironic introduction, Humphrey acknowledges the importance of Daniel Dennett to his work, remarking that, since the two don’t agree on certain points of the theory, “he may sometimes have thought he had introduced a cuckoo to his nest.” Humphrey would later write more about his ideas in the somewhat challenging Seeing Red.
What’s great about this book though is how Humphrey proceeds from the evolutionary perspective (consciousness matters to human beings – it must therefore have a fundamental purpose), using biology, philosophy and the backbone of the ideas presented in 'The Inner Eye' as jumping off points. The book does have a nuts-and-bolts feel to it, in contrast to 'The Inner Eye,' which has more of a sweeping grandeur – not that the final chapters of 'A History Of The Mind' don’t have their own grand rewards. Another wonderful work.
November 11, 2015
Nicholas Humphrey presents a very interesting idea about consciousness using sensations vs. perceptions & how they affect us. Each chapter builds on the ones prior, starting w/the most basic definitions & theories, w/the final chapters addressing potential questions on what this theory could mean for artificial intelligence, life on other planets, & the consciousness of animals other than human beings.
Towards the end of the book, where Mr. Humphrey has built on this theory for numerous chapters, the content starts to get a little bit dense & confusing for a layperson (meaning, not a philosopher, mathematician, or scientist, as the theory seems to deal w/elements of all those areas of study) such as myself.
Also, b/c he builds on previous chapters, he tended to end chapters w/a vague introduction of the next chapter's subject matter, which I found a little unnecessary. It didn't drive me to read the next chapter as other authors have when employing this technique in their books.
I've tried not to describe the theory as, while it boils down to something that sounds simplistic, Mr. Humphrey did a far better job than I ever could & I encourage readers to give him a chance to explain what he thinks it means to be "conscious." He supports his work to the fullest, includes anecdotes (whether real or made up for the purpose of engaging the reader & explaining a specific point that might be - & probably is - confusing) & poems, & presented a well-developed theory that explains consciousness to a person w/ZERO philosophical & limited mathematical/scientific understanding. But, like most attempts, it still doesn't answer the meaning of life... b/c, as he uses Douglas Adams so well to explain, it's not the answer that matters if you don't ask the correct question (42)).
Towards the end of the book, where Mr. Humphrey has built on this theory for numerous chapters, the content starts to get a little bit dense & confusing for a layperson (meaning, not a philosopher, mathematician, or scientist, as the theory seems to deal w/elements of all those areas of study) such as myself.
Also, b/c he builds on previous chapters, he tended to end chapters w/a vague introduction of the next chapter's subject matter, which I found a little unnecessary. It didn't drive me to read the next chapter as other authors have when employing this technique in their books.
I've tried not to describe the theory as, while it boils down to something that sounds simplistic, Mr. Humphrey did a far better job than I ever could & I encourage readers to give him a chance to explain what he thinks it means to be "conscious." He supports his work to the fullest, includes anecdotes (whether real or made up for the purpose of engaging the reader & explaining a specific point that might be - & probably is - confusing) & poems, & presented a well-developed theory that explains consciousness to a person w/ZERO philosophical & limited mathematical/scientific understanding. But, like most attempts, it still doesn't answer the meaning of life... b/c, as he uses Douglas Adams so well to explain, it's not the answer that matters if you don't ask the correct question (42)).
May 18, 2017
Commenting on a theory of consciousness can be contentious and quite hard to fit in a short note, so let's focus on how the theory is presented in this book. On the positive side, you don't have to be a specialist to follow the arguments. Humphrey manages to guide the reader from one complex matter to another, explaining in ways that clarify what he proposes (including through many interesting analogies). So, you reach the last pages in the book with a clear overview of a persuasive approach. However, if you go beyond the overview and start thinking about details, you realize that there are quite a few assumptions and transitions that take place rather quickly or even abruptly. In the end, what remains is a feeling of plausibility: yes, it could be like this. Not bad for a book on such a tricky subject.
February 3, 2018
One problem with this book is the language is not as flowing as one would like, in particular when the argument becomes difficult and where you most need to pay attentiom the author tends to use tricky prose.
Another problem is the way the book acknowledges and doesn’t many consciousness research results and thesis. It does not do so exhaustively nor does the book explain how other theories have evolved in the more recent years.
The book is otherwise an extremely valuable exercise to reconnect pieces of evolutionary constraints, known biological mechanisms, known philosophical problems around consciousness into a cohesive potential thesis. The amazing outcome is that, we have almost a falsifiable thesis for what consciousness is, this is of huge concrete value in comparison to many other thesis.
If you are seriously interested in consciousness, this is an invaluable book.
Another problem is the way the book acknowledges and doesn’t many consciousness research results and thesis. It does not do so exhaustively nor does the book explain how other theories have evolved in the more recent years.
The book is otherwise an extremely valuable exercise to reconnect pieces of evolutionary constraints, known biological mechanisms, known philosophical problems around consciousness into a cohesive potential thesis. The amazing outcome is that, we have almost a falsifiable thesis for what consciousness is, this is of huge concrete value in comparison to many other thesis.
If you are seriously interested in consciousness, this is an invaluable book.
September 28, 2017
This is at times quite breathtakingly shallow. He argues that to be conscious means to have sense data. Interesting the sections on mind blindness and blindsight. Not badly written with some nice examples and quotations.
January 17, 2018
Es un texto que al principio parece interesante por el uso de psicología evolutiva, pero luego se va por la raíz, con poca demostración de lo afirmado. No es tan interesante para aprender, aunque si es entendible.
May 31, 2022
Grade: B.
Imma just start by saying, I'm not a philosopher, so it doesn't take a lot to surprise me. Create a fancy argument, add some flourishes, tie it to basic biology and its hook, line, and sinker for me.
I'm sure there'll be people being like, "His argument doesn't make sense," or "I have these counterpoints." GOOD FOR YOU! But for me, I was convinced. This was one of the most thoughtful books I have read in a very long time.
Is it speculative? Yes. Does it also force you to ask some important questions about what consciousness is? Also yes! I'm not going to lie, the concept that consciousness could have derived from the cell being able to differentiate between inside and outside the cell is a trippy statement, and even if it's too far fetched, the concept itself just made me stop and think a little bit more. And ultimately, what more can I ask of a book?
Imma just start by saying, I'm not a philosopher, so it doesn't take a lot to surprise me. Create a fancy argument, add some flourishes, tie it to basic biology and its hook, line, and sinker for me.
I'm sure there'll be people being like, "His argument doesn't make sense," or "I have these counterpoints." GOOD FOR YOU! But for me, I was convinced. This was one of the most thoughtful books I have read in a very long time.
Is it speculative? Yes. Does it also force you to ask some important questions about what consciousness is? Also yes! I'm not going to lie, the concept that consciousness could have derived from the cell being able to differentiate between inside and outside the cell is a trippy statement, and even if it's too far fetched, the concept itself just made me stop and think a little bit more. And ultimately, what more can I ask of a book?
June 6, 2016
A well-written and enjoyable book presenting Humphrey's theory of consciousness. Unlike many philosophers, he manages to present his ideas clearly, in common language, without resorting to philosophical jargon or obscure thought experiments. Unlike many philosophers who identify consciousness with higher-level perception and reflective thought, Humphrey makes the case that it's low level sensations, the raw feeling of sensory input, that is the origin of consciousness. Like Daniel Dennett, Humphrey is looking for a functional theory of consciousness based on what cognitive science knows about the brain, so if you're looking for a religious or dualistic explanation of consciousness, you won't find it here. Recommended.
April 20, 2018
Very interesting. At times, thought provoking, at times amusing, at times astonishing, and at times (about 3/4 of the way through) redundant and tedious. This author explains consciousness in terms of neural transmissions. Very different approach than Jaynes. I didn't find this as riveting as Jaynes. Humphrey is extremely logical. Spent most of the book building the case for a simple physical basis for consciousness. My favorite parts dealt with distinguishing between sensation and perception.
October 22, 2010
The first chapter of this book is kind of exciting. Humphrey has this thesis that everything interesting in nature happens at the borders. His ideas around sensation and how we respond to sensation are really great food for thought. Then, he gets a little - odd. He has an argument with a child that he wrote himself to prove/disprove his thesis. And the science seems to have passed him by a bit since this was written - so all of his theories are a little - um, out of date.
August 18, 2014
Sometimes I found myself being sucked in by this author's arguments about evolutionary consciousness, and sometimes I think he went way too far out on a limb. Nevertheless it is a readable book and quite entertaining. But I went away unconvinced that a biological link exists between sensation and crative thought, which I think he wanted me to believe.
June 11, 2014
This is a great example of a book that is so well put together and written that it's quite an interesting and enjoyable read despite not being brought round the author's point of view. Interesting and I'm glad I read it, but a touch disappointed by the conclusion.
December 6, 2007
Fascinating ponderings of a truly original thinker.
March 13, 2010
An interesting book that attempts to explain how consciousness evolved.
August 29, 2010
Loved the easy read of what our consciousness works like.
May 30, 2011
The amount of ideas may well worth one paper or a few, but a book with such a title should have had more meat in it, especially as speculation seems a major portion.
to-keep-reference
March 1, 2016Discutido en Visión de Paralaje Pág.258
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews