What do you think?
Rate this book
Che cosa sappiamo della mente: Gli ultimi progressi delle neuroscienze raccontati dal massimo esperto mondiale
Che cos'è il libero arbitrio? Che cos'è l'immagine corporea? Che cos'è l'arte? Che relazione c'è fra visione e riconoscimento? Come funziona il linguaggio e da dove viene il pensiero astratto? Fino a poco tempo fa di questi problemi si occupavano i filosofi ma oggi a consegnarci i risultati più convincenti è lo studio del cervello, questo piccolo grumo di cellule gelatinose che portiamo nel cranio e che è capace di produrre una quantità di stati mentali superiore al numero di particelle elementari dell'universo conosciuto. In questo volume di alta divulgazione uno dei massimi esperti di neuroscienza illustra gli ultimi traguardi degli studi sul cervello e apre le porte verso le nuove frontiere, dimostrando con il suo stile sempre brillante come, allo stato attuale, sia proprio la ricerca neurologica a condurci al cuore del problema della nostra identità.
179 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 4, 2003
40 people are currently reading
5238 people want to read
About the author
V.S. Ramachandran
28 books1,234 followersVilayanur S. "Rama" Ramachandran is a neurologist best known for his work in the fields of behavioral neurology and psychophysics. He is currently the Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition, Professor in the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.
Ramachandran initially obtained an M.D. at Stanley Medical College in Madras, India, and subsequently obtained a Ph.D. from Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. Ramachandran’s early work was on visual perception but he is best known for his experiments in behavioral neurology which, despite their apparent simplicity, have had a profound impact on the way we think about the brain.
Ramachandran has been elected to fellowships at All Souls College, Oxford, and the Royal Institution, London (which also awarded him the Henry Dale Medal). He gave the 2003 BBC Reith Lectures and was conferred the title of Padma Bhushan by the President of India in 2007. He has been called “The Marco Polo of neuroscience” by Richard Dawkins and "the modern Paul Broca" by Eric Kandel. Newsweek magazine named him a member of "The Century Club", one of the "hundred most prominent people to watch" in the 21st century.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanu...
Ramachandran initially obtained an M.D. at Stanley Medical College in Madras, India, and subsequently obtained a Ph.D. from Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. Ramachandran’s early work was on visual perception but he is best known for his experiments in behavioral neurology which, despite their apparent simplicity, have had a profound impact on the way we think about the brain.
Ramachandran has been elected to fellowships at All Souls College, Oxford, and the Royal Institution, London (which also awarded him the Henry Dale Medal). He gave the 2003 BBC Reith Lectures and was conferred the title of Padma Bhushan by the President of India in 2007. He has been called “The Marco Polo of neuroscience” by Richard Dawkins and "the modern Paul Broca" by Eric Kandel. Newsweek magazine named him a member of "The Century Club", one of the "hundred most prominent people to watch" in the 21st century.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanu...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 130 reviews
February 12, 2013
There was a close competition between the author's ignorance and arrogance and the jury is still out as to the winner. At the head of the most annoying chapter (out of many others that were only irritating) called "Neuroscience - The New Philosophy" the author is quoting himself! ("All of philosophy consists of unlocking, exhuming, and recanting what's been said before, and then getting riled up about it." - V.S. Ramachandran) - how witty! it seems one can easily rile people up even more effectively without having a single philosophical bone in his body.
The author, a neuroscientist and a professor in the department of psychology at the university of California, is working under the delusion that his very narrow expertise, if accompanied with some meager philosophical reading, allows him to reduce psychology, philosophy and even art to neuroscience, by conjecturing simplistic and in the main ludicrous theories. Even in the area where he is supposed to know better, the science of the brain, he keeps proposing different experiments, predictions, mays and shoulds, while adding things like "this experiment was never done yet, but I predict that...". How scientific!
His knowledge and understanding of philosophy of mind and consciousness-related problems is only competing in its want with his non-existent knowledge in philosophy of art. None of that of course deters him from solving all philosophical problems using the new science of neurons. Clearly if you know where each part in the brain is and some of the functions of these parts, then you can write a book about everything and then end it with the pompous:
"By studying these strange cases and asking the right questions, neuroscientists can begin to answer some of those lofty questions that have preoccupied philosophers since the dawn of history: What is free will? What is body image? Why do we blush? What is art? What is the self? Who am I? - questions that until recently were solely the province of metaphysics.
No enterprise is more vital [and no one as important as the author of course] for the well-being and survival of the human race [no doubt!]. This is just as true now as it was in the past Remember that politics, colonialism, imperialism and war also originate in the human brain [let alone idiotic books]."
Need I say more? (because I truly can)
The author, a neuroscientist and a professor in the department of psychology at the university of California, is working under the delusion that his very narrow expertise, if accompanied with some meager philosophical reading, allows him to reduce psychology, philosophy and even art to neuroscience, by conjecturing simplistic and in the main ludicrous theories. Even in the area where he is supposed to know better, the science of the brain, he keeps proposing different experiments, predictions, mays and shoulds, while adding things like "this experiment was never done yet, but I predict that...". How scientific!
His knowledge and understanding of philosophy of mind and consciousness-related problems is only competing in its want with his non-existent knowledge in philosophy of art. None of that of course deters him from solving all philosophical problems using the new science of neurons. Clearly if you know where each part in the brain is and some of the functions of these parts, then you can write a book about everything and then end it with the pompous:
"By studying these strange cases and asking the right questions, neuroscientists can begin to answer some of those lofty questions that have preoccupied philosophers since the dawn of history: What is free will? What is body image? Why do we blush? What is art? What is the self? Who am I? - questions that until recently were solely the province of metaphysics.
No enterprise is more vital [and no one as important as the author of course] for the well-being and survival of the human race [no doubt!]. This is just as true now as it was in the past Remember that politics, colonialism, imperialism and war also originate in the human brain [let alone idiotic books]."
Need I say more? (because I truly can)
June 1, 2009
Ramachandran is brilliant. This is a really engaging book book that explores human consciousness by looking at various disorders or patients with brain damage who now function in really odd ways(Ramachandran's usual M.O.). The case studies are fascinating as always, and his commentary on them is what really makes the book(particularly his end notes, which comprise almost half the book).
An interesting problem, which he brought up a few times during the course of the book, and which I myself have been wrestling with recently, is the questions surrounding qualia(the quality of our subjective experience). Neuroscience tells us that free will and even the self are illusions, convenient fictions. But if this is the case, why would evolution ever have selected for these subjective sensations? What function do they serve? And how does this mechanism work and how did it evolve? To me those are the most interesting questions being asked in neuroscience right now.
An interesting problem, which he brought up a few times during the course of the book, and which I myself have been wrestling with recently, is the questions surrounding qualia(the quality of our subjective experience). Neuroscience tells us that free will and even the self are illusions, convenient fictions. But if this is the case, why would evolution ever have selected for these subjective sensations? What function do they serve? And how does this mechanism work and how did it evolve? To me those are the most interesting questions being asked in neuroscience right now.
February 20, 2018
Ramachandran and his work deserve more than three stars. I enjoyed The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human and Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind so much, and learned so much reading them, that I went back to this one, though it's 15 years old. This is more like a sketchy outline of some of the others, just 100 pages in five chapters, and another 60 pages of endnotes (which I didn't read). His looks into the workings of the brain are fascinating. But all of the material was covered, in more detail, in his other books. As with those other books, his ideas about art don't resonate with me. And the casual sexism in a couple of the chapters was jarring.
This could be an introduction to some aspects of brain research as it was 15 or 20 years ago. But for anyone with the endurance to read 300-400 pages, Ramachandran's other books are better.
This could be an introduction to some aspects of brain research as it was 15 or 20 years ago. But for anyone with the endurance to read 300-400 pages, Ramachandran's other books are better.
February 11, 2024
Non il miglior saggio della mia vita. Anzi, non un granché a dire il vero. Peccato perché trovo l'argomento attraente nonostante non sia molto ferrato in materia.
La parte iniziale è la più stuzzicante, in particolare i vari schemi della struttura del cervello e il sistema di riorganizzazione delle mappe sensoriali.
Cose che ho trovato interessanti:
- L'origine del dolore acuto e del dolore cronico.
- La sinestesia (ossia la confusione dei sensi). Forse la cosa più curiosa in assoluto, se pensiamo che c'è gente che associa senza volerlo i colori ai numeri o alle note musicali. Il test clinico della sinestesia è una figata.
- L'origine e l'evoluzione della risata.
- L'isolamento modulare nell'autismo: "Quando tutti gli altri moduli cerebrali non funzionano, il soggetto sviluppa un iperfunzionamento del lobo parietale destro. Alan Snyder, in Australia, sostiene addirittura che si possono liberare talenti nascosti paralizzando temporaneamente le parti del cervello in volontari normali". Non so come siano andati avanti gli studi ma vorrei approfondire.
- L'esperimento sul libero arbitrio (pagina 88, non mi dilungo a descriverlo perché ci metterei troppo).
Cose che non mi sono piaciute:
- Le dieci leggi universali dell'arte. Confesso che quando le ha anticipate ho pensato "Ohh, non vedo l'ora di leggerle", e invece le ho trovate deboli e confusionarie.
- Molte, troppe teorie sono campate in aria. Il che è normalissimo, dato che la conoscenza è in continua evoluzione e vanno battuti un po' tutti i campi, anche quelli che sul momento paiono improbabili. Diventa sconveniente però quando si parte da assunti molto fragili (e assolutamente non dimostrati) e ci si costruiscono sopra pagine di teorie dando i dati precedenti per assodati. Esempio: le prime pagine sulla sinestesia sono molto caute, perché dell'origine se ne conosce poco. Più avanti invece riprende con "Abbiamo dimostrato che la sinestesia è un fenomeno sensoriale autentico", dicendo che può vedere numeri colorati una persona su 200 (che già mi sembra un cifra altina). Dulcis in fundo, l'esempio di pagina 74: "il 98% delle persone ha battezzato buba la forma arrotondata e kiki la forma acuminata. Se anche voi avete fatto lo stesso, siete sinestetici". Quindi alla fine siamo quasi tutti sinestetici. Boh.
- Alcune note che non si capisce perché siano tra le note, sia per la lunghezza, sia perché sarebbero perfettamente integrate nel discorso principale.
In sostanza non un libro da buttare, ma potete dare tranquillamente la precedenza ad altro, anche considerando che il testo è ormai vecchiotto (2003) e se volete approfondire le neuroscienze potete orientarvi su qualcosa di più recente e aggiornato.
La parte iniziale è la più stuzzicante, in particolare i vari schemi della struttura del cervello e il sistema di riorganizzazione delle mappe sensoriali.
Cose che ho trovato interessanti:
- L'origine del dolore acuto e del dolore cronico.
- La sinestesia (ossia la confusione dei sensi). Forse la cosa più curiosa in assoluto, se pensiamo che c'è gente che associa senza volerlo i colori ai numeri o alle note musicali. Il test clinico della sinestesia è una figata.
- L'origine e l'evoluzione della risata.
- L'isolamento modulare nell'autismo: "Quando tutti gli altri moduli cerebrali non funzionano, il soggetto sviluppa un iperfunzionamento del lobo parietale destro. Alan Snyder, in Australia, sostiene addirittura che si possono liberare talenti nascosti paralizzando temporaneamente le parti del cervello in volontari normali". Non so come siano andati avanti gli studi ma vorrei approfondire.
- L'esperimento sul libero arbitrio (pagina 88, non mi dilungo a descriverlo perché ci metterei troppo).
Cose che non mi sono piaciute:
- Le dieci leggi universali dell'arte. Confesso che quando le ha anticipate ho pensato "Ohh, non vedo l'ora di leggerle", e invece le ho trovate deboli e confusionarie.
- Molte, troppe teorie sono campate in aria. Il che è normalissimo, dato che la conoscenza è in continua evoluzione e vanno battuti un po' tutti i campi, anche quelli che sul momento paiono improbabili. Diventa sconveniente però quando si parte da assunti molto fragili (e assolutamente non dimostrati) e ci si costruiscono sopra pagine di teorie dando i dati precedenti per assodati. Esempio: le prime pagine sulla sinestesia sono molto caute, perché dell'origine se ne conosce poco. Più avanti invece riprende con "Abbiamo dimostrato che la sinestesia è un fenomeno sensoriale autentico", dicendo che può vedere numeri colorati una persona su 200 (che già mi sembra un cifra altina). Dulcis in fundo, l'esempio di pagina 74: "il 98% delle persone ha battezzato buba la forma arrotondata e kiki la forma acuminata. Se anche voi avete fatto lo stesso, siete sinestetici". Quindi alla fine siamo quasi tutti sinestetici. Boh.
- Alcune note che non si capisce perché siano tra le note, sia per la lunghezza, sia perché sarebbero perfettamente integrate nel discorso principale.
In sostanza non un libro da buttare, ma potete dare tranquillamente la precedenza ad altro, anche considerando che il testo è ormai vecchiotto (2003) e se volete approfondire le neuroscienze potete orientarvi su qualcosa di più recente e aggiornato.
September 24, 2013
There's some interesting information to be gleaned from this book, but Ramachandran doesn't make many solid conclusions, and he juxtaposes his cognitive theories with some completely pointless off-color jokes and unnecessary political asides.
In addition, the valuable material presented is hindered by some truly terrible proofreading and rampant errors. In the final chapter, there is a reference for endnote 12. There is no endnote 12 in that chapter.
Quite possibly the most jarring science-related error was this, on page 108:
The notes section, which comprises about a third of the book, contains the most mistakes. In just a two-page span, you encounter the following:
What I'm trying to say is that it's incredibly difficult for me, as a reader, to take the subject matter seriously when it's riddled with errors like this. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone who has similar issues with poor copy editing.
In addition, the valuable material presented is hindered by some truly terrible proofreading and rampant errors. In the final chapter, there is a reference for endnote 12. There is no endnote 12 in that chapter.
Quite possibly the most jarring science-related error was this, on page 108:
...it's like asking whether the wetness of water derives mainly from the H2 or the O2 that constitute H2O.
The notes section, which comprises about a third of the book, contains the most mistakes. In just a two-page span, you encounter the following:
• p. 158: "Will a face that resembles the original but is obviously perceived as differ- ent by the explicit (conscious) memory system..."
• p. 158: "This implies that the patient continues to acquire at least some new memories but without the hypocampus, she cannot index them..."
• p. 158: "The key issue regarding hypnosis is whether it is simply an elaborate form of role playing [...] or does it represent a genuinely different brain state?"
• p. 159: "In more direct test Shai Azoulai and I will..."
• p. 159: "Now imagine: I hypnotize a subject, give him two balls A and B of indentical size and weight..."
• p. 159: "But if hypnosis is just extreme suggestibility he should actually say A was heavier 'because its big!'"
What I'm trying to say is that it's incredibly difficult for me, as a reader, to take the subject matter seriously when it's riddled with errors like this. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone who has similar issues with poor copy editing.
July 21, 2009
V.S. Ramachandran is interested in how the scientific study of the brain can clarify some of the philosophical issues pertaining to consciousness (and thus to the mind-body problem). His work is comparable to that of António R. Damásio, although Ramachandran has more of an adventurous and speculative attitude, including a playful sense of humor.
Like Damasio, Ramachandran conducts elaborate experiments which result in associating particular kinds of functional behavior with particular areas or characteristics of the brain. Wherever possible, he places the results of his research within the context of evolutionary development, showing how there is some survival benefit in the brain’s developing to support a certain function.
An example would be the study of “blindsight” in which a person with damage to the visual cortex is unable to see a portion of his visual field. Yet if the person is asked to point to an object in the unseen portion of his visual field, he can do so correctly and reliably. Such a person has “blindsight,” meaning an alternate pathway for processing vision in the brain, which is not conscious. One is conscious of normal vision, and can describe what one sees. “Blindsight” is vision of which one is not conscious, but which nonetheless is functional because one can point to the object, even though one is not aware of seeing it.
In the traditional mind-body problem, there are various threshold definitions for what constitutes mind. Is the mind consciousness? And if so, what exactly constitutes consciousness? Ramachandran has described a laboratory experiment in which consciousness of vision is isolated functionally and associated with a particular part of the brain. He goes on to consider how consciousness of vision may have evolved because it confers an advantage over non-conscious visual functioning.
Philosophers such as Akeel Bilgrami have discussed from a purely philosophical point of view (i.e. on the basis of logic and language) the role of self-knowledge in free will and moral discourse. In the context of Ramachandran’s researches, self-knowledge is the equivalent of consciousness, so that Ramachandran has bridged a gap between a philosophical study of mind and a scientific research into the functioning and evolutionary development of the brain.
Though I have outlined a simple case, there are many others, and the possibility for further insight seems promising. Ramachandran devotes a chapter to speculating on “neuroaesthetics,” on characteristics of art that are functional in an evolutionary context. He also talks about “mirror neurons” which mimic the reactions in other humans, and which might provide an evolutionary explanation for sympathy and altruism. It seems that wherever science can accurately discuss the terms of a philosophical debate, there is room for progress.
Like Damasio, Ramachandran conducts elaborate experiments which result in associating particular kinds of functional behavior with particular areas or characteristics of the brain. Wherever possible, he places the results of his research within the context of evolutionary development, showing how there is some survival benefit in the brain’s developing to support a certain function.
An example would be the study of “blindsight” in which a person with damage to the visual cortex is unable to see a portion of his visual field. Yet if the person is asked to point to an object in the unseen portion of his visual field, he can do so correctly and reliably. Such a person has “blindsight,” meaning an alternate pathway for processing vision in the brain, which is not conscious. One is conscious of normal vision, and can describe what one sees. “Blindsight” is vision of which one is not conscious, but which nonetheless is functional because one can point to the object, even though one is not aware of seeing it.
In the traditional mind-body problem, there are various threshold definitions for what constitutes mind. Is the mind consciousness? And if so, what exactly constitutes consciousness? Ramachandran has described a laboratory experiment in which consciousness of vision is isolated functionally and associated with a particular part of the brain. He goes on to consider how consciousness of vision may have evolved because it confers an advantage over non-conscious visual functioning.
Philosophers such as Akeel Bilgrami have discussed from a purely philosophical point of view (i.e. on the basis of logic and language) the role of self-knowledge in free will and moral discourse. In the context of Ramachandran’s researches, self-knowledge is the equivalent of consciousness, so that Ramachandran has bridged a gap between a philosophical study of mind and a scientific research into the functioning and evolutionary development of the brain.
Though I have outlined a simple case, there are many others, and the possibility for further insight seems promising. Ramachandran devotes a chapter to speculating on “neuroaesthetics,” on characteristics of art that are functional in an evolutionary context. He also talks about “mirror neurons” which mimic the reactions in other humans, and which might provide an evolutionary explanation for sympathy and altruism. It seems that wherever science can accurately discuss the terms of a philosophical debate, there is room for progress.
January 17, 2012
The quote on the front of the book says: "...belongs to that rare category of scientific book, one as accessible as it is deep" (Oliver Sacks). I found this book entirely too accessible and not at all deep enough.
From a content perspective, I did learn a few interesting tidbits. But I did NOT learn what consciousness is. He's mostly just scratching the surface--not providing enough discussion to really engage you. He is also very speculative, which is fine, but why not provide enough evidence or examples to try to convince us that his theory is right?
From a style perspective, this dude is very annoying. First of all, he uses English/American figures of speech which I think he doesn't understand. For example: "Speculation is fine, provided it leads to testable predictions and so long as the author makes it clear when he is merely speculating--skating on thin ice--as opposed to when he's on solid ground." (p. x) and "Artistic skill may be an index of skillful eye-hand coordination and, therefore, and advertisement of good genes for attracting potential mates (the 'come and see my etchings' theory)." (p. 55)
Second, he throws these random insults about different cultures around as jokes, which seem strange and out of place for a scientist. Examples: "Every society, every civilization, every culture, has some form of laughter and humor (except for Germans)" (p. 21) "Believe it or not, every time you see your mother, you sweat! (And you don't even have to be Jewish.)" (p. 90) and "Our brains are inextricably bound to the cultural mileu they are immersed in and, if raised in a cave by wolves or in a culture-free environment (like Texas), we would barely be human" (p. 108) My problem is that he has not shown that he has any sort of "social capital" to be making such jokes. I mean let's say he has a lot of German friends or spent time in Germany and has a rapport with these friends where they make fun of each other's cultures all the time...fine, but a random reader like me has no knowledge of this so he just seems inappropriate! And by the way I don't remember reading any jokes about India.
Other things that annoyed me: He repeats content in Chapter 4 that he already explained in just as much detail in Chapter 1. He starts each chapter with a quote from someone, and he started the last chapter with a quote from himself. And he states, quite seriously, as far as I can tell: "Metaphors are not to be taken literally." (p. 71) For some reason this statement really bugs me in its obviousness!
His other book, "Phantoms in the Brain," may be better...but now I'm not sure if I want to read it!
From a content perspective, I did learn a few interesting tidbits. But I did NOT learn what consciousness is. He's mostly just scratching the surface--not providing enough discussion to really engage you. He is also very speculative, which is fine, but why not provide enough evidence or examples to try to convince us that his theory is right?
From a style perspective, this dude is very annoying. First of all, he uses English/American figures of speech which I think he doesn't understand. For example: "Speculation is fine, provided it leads to testable predictions and so long as the author makes it clear when he is merely speculating--skating on thin ice--as opposed to when he's on solid ground." (p. x) and "Artistic skill may be an index of skillful eye-hand coordination and, therefore, and advertisement of good genes for attracting potential mates (the 'come and see my etchings' theory)." (p. 55)
Second, he throws these random insults about different cultures around as jokes, which seem strange and out of place for a scientist. Examples: "Every society, every civilization, every culture, has some form of laughter and humor (except for Germans)" (p. 21) "Believe it or not, every time you see your mother, you sweat! (And you don't even have to be Jewish.)" (p. 90) and "Our brains are inextricably bound to the cultural mileu they are immersed in and, if raised in a cave by wolves or in a culture-free environment (like Texas), we would barely be human" (p. 108) My problem is that he has not shown that he has any sort of "social capital" to be making such jokes. I mean let's say he has a lot of German friends or spent time in Germany and has a rapport with these friends where they make fun of each other's cultures all the time...fine, but a random reader like me has no knowledge of this so he just seems inappropriate! And by the way I don't remember reading any jokes about India.
Other things that annoyed me: He repeats content in Chapter 4 that he already explained in just as much detail in Chapter 1. He starts each chapter with a quote from someone, and he started the last chapter with a quote from himself. And he states, quite seriously, as far as I can tell: "Metaphors are not to be taken literally." (p. 71) For some reason this statement really bugs me in its obviousness!
His other book, "Phantoms in the Brain," may be better...but now I'm not sure if I want to read it!
October 6, 2016
I have studied synesthesia and mirror neurons as part of my psychology degree at university, and Ramachandran has been a big name on the refference list, so it only made sense to read his books, not just his scientific papers. This is a brilliant account of some of his and his colleagues' discoveries in the field of neurobiology, and I would recommend it to anyone who has a keen interest in the human mind. Beautifully written and backed up by numerous research papers, this book might just be the start of a love affair with psychology, psychoatry and biology.
June 6, 2025
i temi forti di questo studioso sono evidentemente gli arti fantasma e le sinestesie. mi sembra meno forte sulla musica, dato che - mi si corregga se sbaglio - il do bemolle e il fa bemolle si chiamano comunemente si e mi. tuttavia, pur avendo già letto "la donna che morì dal ridere", o forse proprio perché l'avevo letto, mi sono appassionata a questa breve serie di conferenze, anche se un po' mi perdo tra cingoli e cortecce. la battuta sul sudare in presenza della mamma anche se non si è ebrei fa riferimento, direi, a un'ampia letteratura non scientifica e mi ha fatto ridere.
July 5, 2013
Neuroscience on the edge
Not normally the kind of thing that would enrapture me, but I was truly fascinated to learn all of the peculiarities of the brain that science has revealed. This book is the real What the Bleep Do We Know. Accessible, engaging, concise...and it's real science, did I mention. Ramachandran has such a thoughtful, unpretentious delivery--he's the left-brained counterpart to Deepak Chopra.
Read and marvel.
Not normally the kind of thing that would enrapture me, but I was truly fascinated to learn all of the peculiarities of the brain that science has revealed. This book is the real What the Bleep Do We Know. Accessible, engaging, concise...and it's real science, did I mention. Ramachandran has such a thoughtful, unpretentious delivery--he's the left-brained counterpart to Deepak Chopra.
Read and marvel.
January 20, 2022
Great analysis of the scientific and philosophical consequences of brain anomalies.
May 21, 2008
Written halfway through the book:
I picked this one up because of the author's interactions with WNYC's Radio Lab. He provides very interesting and thoughtful insights on that program, and I was looking forward to diving into the "whys and wherefores" of his trade, his theories, and his experiences. So far, I've been a bit disappointed with how unscientific this book is. I'm sure it's a fault more of my expectations than anything, but it's very, very much aimed for the layman, not the casual, interested, somewhat-educated person hoping to get more than a passing awareness into the science.
----
Written after finishing it:
I finally made my way through the rest of the book, and I have to say, I'm still quite disappointed. My earlier review complained of a lack of "scientificness", though I would now complain that the author threw in too many casual references to the names of parts of the brain. (Does telling me that something happens in the "temporo-parieto-occipital junction" really do anything to help me understand his point?) There's a fine line between dully uninformative and recklessly technical. Unfortunately, Mr. Ramachandran does an expert job of straddling that line as one would a thigh-high electric fence: he's firmly planted on either side but comes nowhere close to the middle.
I was most intrigued by the examples he mentions -- human beings with oddities in their brains can work in the most fantastically bizarre ways. But then he jumps into telling me where the mess happens, instead of exploring the potential implications of those messes or how people overcome or tap into those differences. It was almost like reading "So here's a cool example. That takes place in this part here. Wouldn't it be neat to know why that happens that way? Alright. Here's another example...." for 112 pages.
Which, BTW, brings me to my next gripe. (Sorry...I'm on a roll.) This book is 192 pages long, only 112 of which are actual "story" material. I was just about to write a brief and biting complaint, but then I realized that I was thankful the discussion ended after 112 pages, and that the remaining 80 were "notes" that I can easily do without. I'm over it. I did my time--this book took me months to complete because I really never wanted to return to it--and now I'm through. Those extra 80 pages of bonus content might just as well never have been written, if you ask me.
I picked this one up because of the author's interactions with WNYC's Radio Lab. He provides very interesting and thoughtful insights on that program, and I was looking forward to diving into the "whys and wherefores" of his trade, his theories, and his experiences. So far, I've been a bit disappointed with how unscientific this book is. I'm sure it's a fault more of my expectations than anything, but it's very, very much aimed for the layman, not the casual, interested, somewhat-educated person hoping to get more than a passing awareness into the science.
----
Written after finishing it:
I finally made my way through the rest of the book, and I have to say, I'm still quite disappointed. My earlier review complained of a lack of "scientificness", though I would now complain that the author threw in too many casual references to the names of parts of the brain. (Does telling me that something happens in the "temporo-parieto-occipital junction" really do anything to help me understand his point?) There's a fine line between dully uninformative and recklessly technical. Unfortunately, Mr. Ramachandran does an expert job of straddling that line as one would a thigh-high electric fence: he's firmly planted on either side but comes nowhere close to the middle.
I was most intrigued by the examples he mentions -- human beings with oddities in their brains can work in the most fantastically bizarre ways. But then he jumps into telling me where the mess happens, instead of exploring the potential implications of those messes or how people overcome or tap into those differences. It was almost like reading "So here's a cool example. That takes place in this part here. Wouldn't it be neat to know why that happens that way? Alright. Here's another example...." for 112 pages.
Which, BTW, brings me to my next gripe. (Sorry...I'm on a roll.) This book is 192 pages long, only 112 of which are actual "story" material. I was just about to write a brief and biting complaint, but then I realized that I was thankful the discussion ended after 112 pages, and that the remaining 80 were "notes" that I can easily do without. I'm over it. I did my time--this book took me months to complete because I really never wanted to return to it--and now I'm through. Those extra 80 pages of bonus content might just as well never have been written, if you ask me.
November 17, 2015
Gah! I got to the end and discovered that the notes 11 and 12 from Chapter 5, Neuroscience - The New philosophy, aren't there! You turn to the notes and the last one is 10! Only 57% of this book is text and the rest is notes (very interesting ones!), glossary, and index. Oh, and acknowledgements - which seem to cover everyone Ramachandran has met in his life.
Much of the early chapters covers material I've read about in Oliver Sacks's books. Ramachandran takes the case studies a step further by theorizing how specific brain lesions reveal how the brain works and how its abilities developed by evolution. Woot-alors! Many abilities piggybacked on other developments. Wish I could remember what they were!
Oh, and we're all synesthetes! Isn't that fun to know? And eyesight is a very, very complicated. It's processed by more than one part of the brain - so if one part of that process is interrupted by a lesion, another part still registers. This means that someone can be unaware that they can see something, yet can point to it. Someone can recognize their mother's face, but because another part of the brain that would attach emotion to it no longer functions, they insist that person must be an imposter. However, they will recognize the voice over the phone and there is no problem.
Ramachandran also attempts to explain art ... as an evolutionary advantage. Why are Picasso's abstracts so compelling? Why are Hindu goddesses so over-the-top voluptuous to the point of not looking real? And what's with all the arms? [That last bit should be totally understandable in that the many arms represent the many attributes of the deities and consequently help tell stories without having to make a series of statues.]
Although it seems that all our thinking, experiencing, imagining is "just" chemicals, that doesn't make all that any the less profound or interesting. For some of us (even those of us struggling to understand), it makes it all the more fascinating; it becomes the Better Story. [Sorry, Yann Martel.]
Somehow I managed to come through this without turning into the hypochondriac that The man who mistook his wife for a hat had made me. Well, phew! I only wish I were smarter, that I could remember this material better. Maybe I should own the book so I can keep referring to it! No, not if it's missing notes. :(
Much of the early chapters covers material I've read about in Oliver Sacks's books. Ramachandran takes the case studies a step further by theorizing how specific brain lesions reveal how the brain works and how its abilities developed by evolution. Woot-alors! Many abilities piggybacked on other developments. Wish I could remember what they were!
Oh, and we're all synesthetes! Isn't that fun to know? And eyesight is a very, very complicated. It's processed by more than one part of the brain - so if one part of that process is interrupted by a lesion, another part still registers. This means that someone can be unaware that they can see something, yet can point to it. Someone can recognize their mother's face, but because another part of the brain that would attach emotion to it no longer functions, they insist that person must be an imposter. However, they will recognize the voice over the phone and there is no problem.
Ramachandran also attempts to explain art ... as an evolutionary advantage. Why are Picasso's abstracts so compelling? Why are Hindu goddesses so over-the-top voluptuous to the point of not looking real? And what's with all the arms? [That last bit should be totally understandable in that the many arms represent the many attributes of the deities and consequently help tell stories without having to make a series of statues.]
Although it seems that all our thinking, experiencing, imagining is "just" chemicals, that doesn't make all that any the less profound or interesting. For some of us (even those of us struggling to understand), it makes it all the more fascinating; it becomes the Better Story. [Sorry, Yann Martel.]
Somehow I managed to come through this without turning into the hypochondriac that The man who mistook his wife for a hat had made me. Well, phew! I only wish I were smarter, that I could remember this material better. Maybe I should own the book so I can keep referring to it! No, not if it's missing notes. :(
Read
August 2, 2021To start off, I have never been interested in becoming a doctor in any way, so this is not the type of book that I would normally read. A co-worker who is studying to be a doctor had to read this book for a class, and when I was complaining that I didn’t have anything to read, she said “Here, read this and stop crying.” So I did. And it messed me up. I mean come on, phantom limbs? Pain in phantom limbs? Seeing different numbers as colors? I had never heard of any of those things. And this guy, Ramachandran, his findings are so incredibly simplistic it is ridiculous. Trick the brain by looking in a mirror, I mean come on, no pill or electro-shock therapy? This guy is awesome. Even if you have no ambitions to enter the medical field, reading this is awesome. You learn things you never knew. Aside from the actual science and medical terms that he uses that I didn’t care to understand, (or really want to try to) I lost nothing in the actual understanding of what he was saying. It was very informative and for me, a fun book to read.
March 25, 2014
A short book, but packed full of ideas. There are three or four different ideas on almost every page -- ideas about the brain and consciousness, of course, but also about evolution, art, philosophy, ethics, and even criminal justice. They're almost all intriguing. Unfortunately, none of them are explored in sufficient depth for the reader to form much of an opinion. Most likely this is due to the fact that book originated a series of lectures. Also, most of the case studies will be familiar to anyone who has read other books on neurology, where they are often explained in much greater detail.
Overall, a frustrating read. I greatly prefer the works of Oliver Sacks, or Ramachandran's own, far superior work, Phantoms in the Brain.
Ramachandran ends by expressing the hope that he has conveyed "the sense of excitement that my colleagues and I experience" in the study of neuroscience. That he did achieve; the book exudes a palpable sense of intellectual ferment. I just wish the excitement had been channeled more effectively.
Overall, a frustrating read. I greatly prefer the works of Oliver Sacks, or Ramachandran's own, far superior work, Phantoms in the Brain.
Ramachandran ends by expressing the hope that he has conveyed "the sense of excitement that my colleagues and I experience" in the study of neuroscience. That he did achieve; the book exudes a palpable sense of intellectual ferment. I just wish the excitement had been channeled more effectively.
December 7, 2010
Ramachandran looks at some of the ways we can learn about the brain by seeing at what has changed (structurally) in a brain that no longer functions as we would suspect, such as a person who suddenly feels they are no longer alive, or someone who can no longer connect recognition of faces to emotional responses.
He also examines how our brain desperately rationalises unexpected responses to stimuli, which is very intriguing and makes me feel even more highly suspicious of my own perceptions!
The therapy utilising mirror neurons for phantom limb sufferers is very fascinating. If you are interested in this subject, you will love this New York Times article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/20...
I've read so many other books that reference the research Ramachandran has conducted that I had a lot of deja-vu, but as always the more ways you learn about something the better integrated it becomes in your understanding.
He also examines how our brain desperately rationalises unexpected responses to stimuli, which is very intriguing and makes me feel even more highly suspicious of my own perceptions!
The therapy utilising mirror neurons for phantom limb sufferers is very fascinating. If you are interested in this subject, you will love this New York Times article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/20...
I've read so many other books that reference the research Ramachandran has conducted that I had a lot of deja-vu, but as always the more ways you learn about something the better integrated it becomes in your understanding.
March 20, 2021
This is just about the worst book I have read on the subject. The self-flattery and the leftish political remarks are bad enough. But the conjecturing without evidence, where evidence was easily obtainable by the author comes off as just self-congratulation—his untested theories on autism, for example. He should not state a theory without testing it if the test is easily done. Furthermore, he seems to draw conclusions from very few test cases. He seems to be generalizing more than he is doing science.
His comments on blushing are interesting, but too brief. His comment on how self-consciousness evolved in a culture seems very Marxist. On the other hand, his theory of laughter on p.22 seems plausible. His theory about blindsight being due to two different visual processing centers-one old, one new--also seems plausible. Chapter Three—his chapter on art—has got to be the worst. Here is a literal minded engineer type describing art and completely missing the boat.
His comments on blushing are interesting, but too brief. His comment on how self-consciousness evolved in a culture seems very Marxist. On the other hand, his theory of laughter on p.22 seems plausible. His theory about blindsight being due to two different visual processing centers-one old, one new--also seems plausible. Chapter Three—his chapter on art—has got to be the worst. Here is a literal minded engineer type describing art and completely missing the boat.
January 31, 2013
This was a fascinating and, more importantly, extremely accessible book about some of the quirkier aspects of the human brain. I've read several books that literally required rereading multiple passages to get the drift of what the author was trying to communicate. This is NOT one of those books. Ramachandran spells things out well and clearly. If neuroscience interests you, this is a keeper. If you're one of those people who love watching documentaries about the brain and human behavior, pick this on up. You won't regret it.
February 16, 2017
Fascinating research, great examples appropriatelly tailored for a general audience, and captivating presentation style about the role of the brain in performance of the human body. I liked his studies of abnormal behaviours to identify hypothetical neuronal network redesign inside the brain in response to various structural and functional disturbances.
Ramachandran presents the major topics included in the book in this free video: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs...
Ramachandran presents the major topics included in the book in this free video: http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs...
July 31, 2007
Ramachandran is one of the most inventive brain researchers around, and enjoys writing books for the lay audience. He delves into the mysteries of perception, of unusual abilities, and traces them to defects and peculiarities of the brain and its connections. Very rewarding dip into the neuroscience pool.
March 30, 2019
HATED IT HATED IT HATED IT
I hate to throw away books, but just this once, I tore the book up into tiny pieces so that no one could fish it out of the garbage and accidentally read it.
Not only is VSR a racist bigot, but his research and writing isn't even as good as those forwards your mom sends you once a week which you have to use Snopes.com to prove to her they're fake.
I hate to throw away books, but just this once, I tore the book up into tiny pieces so that no one could fish it out of the garbage and accidentally read it.
Not only is VSR a racist bigot, but his research and writing isn't even as good as those forwards your mom sends you once a week which you have to use Snopes.com to prove to her they're fake.
October 3, 2023
I started this book because I wanted to read more Oliver Sacks. Spoiler alert: just go back and reread Oliver Sacks instead of reading this book. Ramachandran is arrogant and ridiculous (among many other things, he posits that women aren't attracted to men who knit... what?) and the fun neuroscience just couldn't offset the Ick for me.
March 18, 2010
Ramachandran's prose grates. I usually skip his articles in Scientific American Mind and this book doesn't offer anything new to the study of consciousness, toeing the strict materialist line very closely.
March 4, 2020
a decent overview of topics in cognitive neuroscience, but the author is kind of annoying and it's a wasted read if you're at all familiar with the subject already.
April 18, 2020
In A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness, V.S. Ramachandran reviews much of the contents of his earlier book, Phantoms in the Brain, and continues reinforcing his philosophy of neurology with added insights. He touches on much of what makes human consciousness unique--including sensation, awareness, abstraction, and art. Although much of the book is focused on extremely complex topics, Ramachandran simplifies and explains concepts just enough to be understandable to those without much prior knowledge of neurology, while expanding on nuances in his notes.
The first chapter of A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness focuses primarily on the basic structure of the brain, and introduces Ramachandran’s overarching philosophy of studying it. He covers some of the neurological disorders in Phantoms in the Brain including paralyzed phantom limbs and synesthesia, a disorder in which people attribute different colors to certain numbers. He revisits much of the contents of this first chapter in later ones, and often dynamically connects the different subjects. The theme of Ramachandran’s research is that by studying anomalies in science, rather than simply disregarding them, you can learn a lot about the functions of a system. He outlines the “recipe” for a scientific revolution, and explains that if this philosophy were widely adopted, it would be of great benefit to science.
Although A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness is a fascinating and accessible introduction to its subjects, I suggest reading Ramachandran’s most famous book, Phantoms in the Brain, first. If you are already familiar with neurology and Ramachandran’s work, disregard this. But if not, Phantoms in the Brain is a more in-depth analysis of the experiments that Ramachandran bases much of this book on. Of course, you can read A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness on its own, but I found I enjoyed it more after having been familiarized with the subjects first.
The first chapter of A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness focuses primarily on the basic structure of the brain, and introduces Ramachandran’s overarching philosophy of studying it. He covers some of the neurological disorders in Phantoms in the Brain including paralyzed phantom limbs and synesthesia, a disorder in which people attribute different colors to certain numbers. He revisits much of the contents of this first chapter in later ones, and often dynamically connects the different subjects. The theme of Ramachandran’s research is that by studying anomalies in science, rather than simply disregarding them, you can learn a lot about the functions of a system. He outlines the “recipe” for a scientific revolution, and explains that if this philosophy were widely adopted, it would be of great benefit to science.
Although A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness is a fascinating and accessible introduction to its subjects, I suggest reading Ramachandran’s most famous book, Phantoms in the Brain, first. If you are already familiar with neurology and Ramachandran’s work, disregard this. But if not, Phantoms in the Brain is a more in-depth analysis of the experiments that Ramachandran bases much of this book on. Of course, you can read A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness on its own, but I found I enjoyed it more after having been familiarized with the subjects first.
December 7, 2023
Avevo aspettative così alte, e invece, a parte i primi due capitoli, questo libro è stato un vero e proprio buco nell’acqua. Credo che la vera fregatura stia nel titolo: se “Che cosa sappiamo della mente” è quello che vorresti leggere, a pagina 2 scopri che l’intenzione dell’autore non è quella di dare un quadro completo delle neuroscienze ma, evidentemente, di fare ipotesi: avrebbero probabilmente dovuto intitolarlo “Che cosa possiamo speculare sulla mente”, dato che, a parte i primi due capitoli introduttivi, che ho trovato sinceramente interessanti, non si fa altro che fare speculazioni e assunzioni, e usarle come base per ulteriori assunzioni e speculazioni, su enormi tematiche come il senso del sé, il libero arbitrio, la nascita del linguaggio e dell’arte, a partire dai “disturbi curiosi” di Sacksiana memoria come la prosopagnosia e la sinestesia. “My source is that I made it the fuck up”, come potete immaginare; e il tutto è condito da “speciali condizioni di spirito” che aiutano l’autore a formulare postulati bizzarri (parole sue, giuro: traete voi le vostre conclusioni); esperimenti mentali che “a differenza di quelli dei filosofi, si possono attuare per davvero” e che sono “test dalla durata di pochi minuti, eppure nessuno ha pensato di condurli” (perché non li fai tu allora, grande genio delle neuroscienze?), ma tranquilli che il risultato ipotetico sarà comunque utilizzato come base per ulteriori speculazioni; un effluvio di note a piè di pagina, che viene veramente da dire a che cosa serve il testo principale; citazioni a se stesso, insulti casuali alle femministe e ai filosofi, citazioni a se stesso in cui insulta i filosofi, e assunzioni che abbiate letto il suo libro precedente. Un vero peccato, soprattutto se penso che, a sentire la copertina, questo è “il massimo esperto mondiale”…
January 28, 2022
I think when we all get to heaven, we're going to discover that our agency (what philosophers might call "libertarian free will") was limited in interesting ways by our neurological processes and biological conditioning. I don't think that we are merely the product of our neurological processes and biological conditioning (that would be what philosophers call "compatibilist free will") but perhaps reality is somewhere in between. Dr. Ramachandran makes a very good case that our unique human attributes of mind, consciousness, etc. are the product of our neurology. His lectures here have interesting implications on the eternal question of what it means to be human, even if, as a religious man, I think those answers will be fully given when we have a chance to talk to our Creator.
This book is a fascinating look into our brains, though, and through the lens of what happens when something goes haywire in them.
This book is a fascinating look into our brains, though, and through the lens of what happens when something goes haywire in them.
March 4, 2021
Un libro di carattere divulgativo, che tuttavia necessita di qualche base neuroanatomica e neurofisiologica per essere goduto a pieno.
Che cos'è il libero arbitrio? Che cos'è l'immagine corporea? Che cos'è l'arte? Che relazione c'è fra visione e riconoscimento? Come funziona il linguaggio e da dove viene il pensiero astratto?
Domande filosofiche che possono iniziare a trovare risposte (anche se parziali) grazie agli studi più recenti di neurobiologia.
Un libro di alta divulgazione di uno dei massimi esperti di neuroscienza, che ci porta per mano, attraverso una visione organicista, alla scoperta degli oscuri anfratti della nostra mente.
Che cos'è il libero arbitrio? Che cos'è l'immagine corporea? Che cos'è l'arte? Che relazione c'è fra visione e riconoscimento? Come funziona il linguaggio e da dove viene il pensiero astratto?
Domande filosofiche che possono iniziare a trovare risposte (anche se parziali) grazie agli studi più recenti di neurobiologia.
Un libro di alta divulgazione di uno dei massimi esperti di neuroscienza, che ci porta per mano, attraverso una visione organicista, alla scoperta degli oscuri anfratti della nostra mente.
March 31, 2015
Gli argomenti sono gia’ stati trattati in “la donna che mori’ dal ridere’ ed in “cosa sappiamo della mente”, per cui a chi li abbia letti suonano un po’ ripetitivi.
Nondimeno la materia e’ affascinante e Ramachandran e’ un eccellente divulgatore, per cui il libro resta una lettura piu’ che interessante.
Divagazioni:
Il ritardo nella percezione cosciente del comando (misurato tramite un innalzamento dell’EEG all’atto dell’attivazione di “preparedness”) non mi sembra contraddica il libero arbitrio: Ramachandran stesso osserva come l’esistenza di un “vecchio percorso” e di un “nuovo percorso” nell’elaborazione cerebrale dell’input visivo comporti l’esistenza di due livelli di attivita’ cerebrale, l’uno coinvolto in azioni “meccaniche” e l’altro nell’elaborazione ad un diverso livello (dare un significato “emotivo” e “razionale” all’input). Questo consente di svolgere due attivita’ contemporaneamente, purche’ una sola di esse comporti “concentrazione”. Cosa significa questo se non che le nostre reazioni (tutto e’ reazione ad un qualche stimolo interno od esterno, l’atto apparendo come “azione” unicamente ad un osservatore esterno) si dividono in “meccaniche” e “ragionate”? Le prime sono reazioni a stimoli gia’ sperimentati, rispetto ai quali abbiamo gia’ operato una scriminante razionale relativamente alla loro “convenienza” (il che implica anche eventuali valutazioni etiche). Sappiamo che se vediamo un semaforo rosso conviene fermarsi, non dobbiamo ogni volta elaborare un ragionamento cosciente in merito, per cui lasciamo alla parte piu’ “primitiva” (evolutivamente anteriore) reagire “automaticamente” (e infatti se guidiamo lungo un percorso noto possiamo essere concentrati in ragionamenti e lasciare “al corpo” – ossia alla parte primitiva del cervello deputata a reagire “istintivamente” – il controllo della guida; ma se un semaforo e’ spento la nostra concentrazione sul ragionamento si interrompe per prendere coscienza di un problema inatteso, cui la parte primitiva del cervello non sa rispondere ed ha bisogno di indicazioni dalla “coscienza”). Si tratta in ogni caso di qualcosa di piu’ dell’istinto, in quanto concerne comportamenti appresi – quali le regole del traffico stradale - rispetto ai quali (diversamente dalla reazione di fuga ed altri comportamenti istintivi) opera una valutazione di convenienza, anche se compiuta una tantum e successivamente “interiorizzata”. Congetturo quindi che la coscienza abbia il compito di valutare la convenienza (intesa in senso lato: giustezza, giustizia, profittabilita’, ecc.) di una tra diverse possibili reazioni ad un determinato stimolo. Una volta operata tale valutazione (cui possiamo dare il nome di libero arbitrio), essa viene “impressa” nei centri neurologici deputati ad assicurare una reazione pronta ed immediata, che non coinvolge la coscienza se non a livello “informativo” (post hoc). Se uno stimolo analogo si ripresenta, tali centri primitivi reagiranno autonomamente, ed i centri superiori si limiteranno a registrare la reazione, anche se in diversa misura a seconda del variabile coinvolgimento cosciente nell’azione (quanto esattamente uno stimolo corrisponde a modelli gia’ sperimentati e valutati?). Stimoli nuovi (in varia misura nuovi) richiedono invece (in varia misura) l’intervento della coscienza. L’esperimento di Ramachandran non comporta l’intervento della coscienza in quanto non vi e’ alcuna convenienza da valutare: l’atto (muovere il dito) corrisponde ad una richiesta del ricercatore (lo stimolo) che espressamente indica l’indifferenza del momento in cui l’atto e’ effettuato (“quando vuoi”, scegli tu”). Il soggetto non deve valutare alcuna convenienza nel determinare il “quando” dell’azione. L’atto essendo indifferente, esso viene lasciato alla parte primitiva dell’encefalo, che si limita ad “informare” la coscienza (rectius: la parte cosciente del cervello prende atto della reazione “meccanica”). L’esistenza di centri primitivi e centri evoluti nel cervello mi sembra inoltre coerente con diverse sindromi (Capgras, Cotard, Pain Symbolia e la stessa interpretazione di Ramachandran della schizofrenia) che ipotizzano una distinzione (una dicotomia) tra percezione e valutazione razionale/emozionale dell’input. So che ricorda un po’ Freud, ma mi sembra coerente con lo stato dell’arte della neurologia e con la teoria dell’evoluzione, poiche’ la struttura encefalica superiore sarebbe un’evoluzione che tipicamente “aggiunge” una mutazione favorevole a qualcosa di preesistente. Nell’Uomo, la capacita’ di elaborare i dati fenomenici e’ tale che la reazione agli stimoli interni ed esterni assume una complessita’ tale che ben merita la definizione di “attivita’ cosciente” e di “libero arbitrio”. Che poi sia una differenza qualitativa o solo quantitativa rispetto agli animali e’ questione perlopiu’ terminologica. Certo noi siamo in grado di “imprimere” nei circuiti neurali deputati ad assicurare una reazione “meccanica” pattern elaboratissimi, potendo prendere in considerazione - nell’elaborare il modello di risposta - valutazioni che un animale non sarebbe in grado di compiere. Inoltre, scelte “contro natura” (contro la tendenza geneticamente predeterminata) sono possibili solo per l’Uomo.
Mi sembra del resto che siano piu’ o meno le stesse conclusioni cui giunge Ramachandran (metarappresentazioni ed estrema sofisticazione dei modelli comportamentali e valutativi, ossia capacita’ di elaborare patterns – a volte anche dove schemi non ci sono).
Nondimeno la materia e’ affascinante e Ramachandran e’ un eccellente divulgatore, per cui il libro resta una lettura piu’ che interessante.
Divagazioni:
Il ritardo nella percezione cosciente del comando (misurato tramite un innalzamento dell’EEG all’atto dell’attivazione di “preparedness”) non mi sembra contraddica il libero arbitrio: Ramachandran stesso osserva come l’esistenza di un “vecchio percorso” e di un “nuovo percorso” nell’elaborazione cerebrale dell’input visivo comporti l’esistenza di due livelli di attivita’ cerebrale, l’uno coinvolto in azioni “meccaniche” e l’altro nell’elaborazione ad un diverso livello (dare un significato “emotivo” e “razionale” all’input). Questo consente di svolgere due attivita’ contemporaneamente, purche’ una sola di esse comporti “concentrazione”. Cosa significa questo se non che le nostre reazioni (tutto e’ reazione ad un qualche stimolo interno od esterno, l’atto apparendo come “azione” unicamente ad un osservatore esterno) si dividono in “meccaniche” e “ragionate”? Le prime sono reazioni a stimoli gia’ sperimentati, rispetto ai quali abbiamo gia’ operato una scriminante razionale relativamente alla loro “convenienza” (il che implica anche eventuali valutazioni etiche). Sappiamo che se vediamo un semaforo rosso conviene fermarsi, non dobbiamo ogni volta elaborare un ragionamento cosciente in merito, per cui lasciamo alla parte piu’ “primitiva” (evolutivamente anteriore) reagire “automaticamente” (e infatti se guidiamo lungo un percorso noto possiamo essere concentrati in ragionamenti e lasciare “al corpo” – ossia alla parte primitiva del cervello deputata a reagire “istintivamente” – il controllo della guida; ma se un semaforo e’ spento la nostra concentrazione sul ragionamento si interrompe per prendere coscienza di un problema inatteso, cui la parte primitiva del cervello non sa rispondere ed ha bisogno di indicazioni dalla “coscienza”). Si tratta in ogni caso di qualcosa di piu’ dell’istinto, in quanto concerne comportamenti appresi – quali le regole del traffico stradale - rispetto ai quali (diversamente dalla reazione di fuga ed altri comportamenti istintivi) opera una valutazione di convenienza, anche se compiuta una tantum e successivamente “interiorizzata”. Congetturo quindi che la coscienza abbia il compito di valutare la convenienza (intesa in senso lato: giustezza, giustizia, profittabilita’, ecc.) di una tra diverse possibili reazioni ad un determinato stimolo. Una volta operata tale valutazione (cui possiamo dare il nome di libero arbitrio), essa viene “impressa” nei centri neurologici deputati ad assicurare una reazione pronta ed immediata, che non coinvolge la coscienza se non a livello “informativo” (post hoc). Se uno stimolo analogo si ripresenta, tali centri primitivi reagiranno autonomamente, ed i centri superiori si limiteranno a registrare la reazione, anche se in diversa misura a seconda del variabile coinvolgimento cosciente nell’azione (quanto esattamente uno stimolo corrisponde a modelli gia’ sperimentati e valutati?). Stimoli nuovi (in varia misura nuovi) richiedono invece (in varia misura) l’intervento della coscienza. L’esperimento di Ramachandran non comporta l’intervento della coscienza in quanto non vi e’ alcuna convenienza da valutare: l’atto (muovere il dito) corrisponde ad una richiesta del ricercatore (lo stimolo) che espressamente indica l’indifferenza del momento in cui l’atto e’ effettuato (“quando vuoi”, scegli tu”). Il soggetto non deve valutare alcuna convenienza nel determinare il “quando” dell’azione. L’atto essendo indifferente, esso viene lasciato alla parte primitiva dell’encefalo, che si limita ad “informare” la coscienza (rectius: la parte cosciente del cervello prende atto della reazione “meccanica”). L’esistenza di centri primitivi e centri evoluti nel cervello mi sembra inoltre coerente con diverse sindromi (Capgras, Cotard, Pain Symbolia e la stessa interpretazione di Ramachandran della schizofrenia) che ipotizzano una distinzione (una dicotomia) tra percezione e valutazione razionale/emozionale dell’input. So che ricorda un po’ Freud, ma mi sembra coerente con lo stato dell’arte della neurologia e con la teoria dell’evoluzione, poiche’ la struttura encefalica superiore sarebbe un’evoluzione che tipicamente “aggiunge” una mutazione favorevole a qualcosa di preesistente. Nell’Uomo, la capacita’ di elaborare i dati fenomenici e’ tale che la reazione agli stimoli interni ed esterni assume una complessita’ tale che ben merita la definizione di “attivita’ cosciente” e di “libero arbitrio”. Che poi sia una differenza qualitativa o solo quantitativa rispetto agli animali e’ questione perlopiu’ terminologica. Certo noi siamo in grado di “imprimere” nei circuiti neurali deputati ad assicurare una reazione “meccanica” pattern elaboratissimi, potendo prendere in considerazione - nell’elaborare il modello di risposta - valutazioni che un animale non sarebbe in grado di compiere. Inoltre, scelte “contro natura” (contro la tendenza geneticamente predeterminata) sono possibili solo per l’Uomo.
Mi sembra del resto che siano piu’ o meno le stesse conclusioni cui giunge Ramachandran (metarappresentazioni ed estrema sofisticazione dei modelli comportamentali e valutativi, ossia capacita’ di elaborare patterns – a volte anche dove schemi non ci sono).
April 19, 2021
This was a very interesting book because before this I had no idea how the brain worked and I really like how much detail he went into. For instance there is one neurological condition where if you get it, if you get your arm chopped off, you can feel like your arm is still there because your brain "has a map" of your body inside it. For instance if you touched someone with phantom limbs (this neurological condition) then they feel like you're touching their arm.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 130 reviews