I'm not sure how, exactly, to classify this book. It is essentially about what we have come to understand about specific brain regions and how they impact our thoughts and behavior (or vice versa). It is written, though, in a casual, journalistic style. The style makes it accessible, but also suspect. I found myself questioning the author and her flippancy several times. I also thought she was overly optimistic and naive about what we know so far and what we will know in the not-too-distant future. Granted, 25 years might make any work relating to science feel dated and somewhat ignorant. But having read a handful of other books on this topic, all from this same period of time, Carter stands out as evincing a cavalier bravado about where we are headed that doesn't age well.
In the introduction Carter writes, "When are brain maps are complete, however, it will be possible to target psychoactive treatments so finely that an individual's state of mind (and thus behavior) will be almost entirely malleable. It may even be possible to alter individual perception to the extent that we could, if we chose, live in a state of virtual reality, almost entirely unaffected by the external environment." Maybe I'm just not as visionary as the author. I, for instance, am not counted among the "more optimistic of today's brain explorers" who work toward a time when "each minute brain component has been located, its function identified and its interactions with each other component made clear" which, in their eyes will then reveal "all there is to know about human nature and experience."
Besides the wide-eyed, expectant tone of the book, my big problem with it was the incessant reliance on evolutionary theory for an explanation of absolutely every single feature of human behavior. It was just obnoxious. Only it wasn't conveyed as theory. It was conveyed as proven, unquestioned fact. There was not even a hint that evolution might not actually explain every facet of human nature. Indeed, even behaviors and mental functions that didn't immediately reveal an evolutionary benefit were subjected to all sorts of cognitive gymnastics to draw out any possible reason for why humans evolved to have x, y, z feature. On page 64, Carter writes, "This complicated system has evolved over millions of years and until recently it has worked for us pretty well...The trouble with evolution, however, is that it cannot keep pace with human ingenuity." So the argument for everything that doesn't fit neatly into the evolutionary theory of human nature is that we just somehow got too smart for our own bodies? I'm sorry. I just don't buy it.
On pages 145-146 Carter writes about music as being "generally regarded as one of the more elevated endowments of the human world." (ironic that she should use the word endowment considering that an endowment implies a giver) She says that "it seems to be one of the few things we do simply for pleasure." But, not to miss a single opportunity, she contradicts herself in the very next paragraph by declaring unequivocally, "There is no known mechanism by which purposeless functions come to evolve." Is it possible that the author thinks this is so because she, and others, have obsessively searched for and assigned evolutionary purposes to every function ever discovered? Naturally if everything we do has a supposed evolutionary basis, then nothing we do could be said to not have an evolutionary basis. This is an obvious case of circular reasoning. She goes on: "Music is therefore likely once to have had some survival benefit, and the most probable one is that it is a prototype communication system. Support for this idea comes from the fact that music appreciation seems to be wired into some of the dumbest creatures on earth..." Brilliant.
The lengths that the author went to to show how certain features served our ancient ancestors' survival was just absurd. The book could have been half its length if she would have stuck to what has actually been discovered about the brain and left all ridiculous editorializing out. I was going to say that, as a Christian, it's obvious that I'm going to take issue with this theory, but I guess that isn't so obvious these days. In any case, as a Christian, I acknowledge that my view of the world is biased toward the argument of intelligent design. I believe that the complexity we see in humans (and, man, are we complex!) is due to an infinitely creative, intelligent and powerful God. I have my own theories for why we are the way we are. The difference is that Christians are made to be transparent about their worldviews while those, like the author, whose god is evolution, are not. The evolutionary theory of man is no more proven than the infinite complexity of the mind is understood, but, to hear the author tell it, both are as sure as the sun rises. Carter is so dogmatic about evolution being the answer for everything that it feels like a religious text, but it's presented as neutral fact. This is simply not intellectually honest.
At the end of the book, the author gets philosophical. After all, after an apparently exhaustive, 200-page glorified magazine article about the vast intricacies of the human brain, we're all coming to the same conclusions. Right? And, so what if we are just highly evolved machines? That's not that bad of a reality, is it? Carter doesn't think so. It's actually a good thing. She writes, "By creating the illusion that there is a self-determining 'I' in each of us, it causes us to punish those who appear to behave badly, even when punishment clearly has no practical benefit. It also encourages us to see mechanical breakdowns of the brain as weakness of some non-material 'self' rather than illnesses of the body. These distorted views were probably useful once because they would have driven antisocial and ailing people away from the tribe. Now they just cause pain. At an emotional level we may continue to believe that we are more than machines, but that need not stop us from accepting the opposite on a rational level and adapting our customs to reflect that knowledge..."
Paradoxically, all this talk of being machines doesn't stop her from, in the end, hoping that "the ability to modulate brains will be used more widely to enhance those mental qualities that give sweetness and meaning to our lives, and to eradicate those that are destructive." What meaning could there be for we humans who are a mere "biological system of awe-inspiring complexity" or for people who have been "modulated" to only experience "sweetness"? Oh, don't worry about that. "The illusion of free will is deeply ingrained precisely because it prevents us from falling into a suicidally fatalistic state of mind — it is one of the brain's most powerful aids to survival." Phew! Dodged that bullet!
In literally the same paragraph as her final hopes for meaning, Carter again swings back the other way to conclude that "Future generations will take for granted that we are programmable machines just as we take for granted the fact that the earth is round." So. The end.
The brain is fascinating. Learning about our brains is humbling and thrilling. It helps us grow in compassion toward others who are not exactly like we are, and it helps us appreciate how intricate we are. It's definitely worth studying, but I don't recommend this book to do it.