What do you think?
Rate this book
Radiant Cool: A Novel Theory Of Consciousness
Professor Grue is dead (or is he?). When graduate student/sleuth Miranda Sharpe discovers him slumped over his keyboard, she does the sensible thing--she grabs her dissertation and runs. Little does she suspect that soon she will be probing the heart of two mysteries, trying to discover what happened to Max Grue, and trying to solve the profound neurophilosophical problem of consciousness. Radiant Cool may be the first novel of ideas that actually breaks new theoretical ground, as Dan Lloyd uses a neo-noir (neuro-noir?), hard-boiled framework to propose a new theory of consciousness.In the course of her sleuthing, Miranda encounters characters who share her urgency to get to the bottom of the mystery of consciousness, although not always with the most innocent motives. Who holds the key to Max Grue's ultimate vision? Is it the computer-inspired pop psychologist talk-show host? The video-gaming geek with a passion for artificial neural networks? The Russian multi-dimensional data detective, or the sophisticated neuroscientist with the big book contract? Ultimately Miranda teams up with the author's fictional alter ego, "Dan Lloyd," and together they build on the phenomenological theories of philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) to construct testable hypotheses about the implementation of consciousness in the brain. Will the clues of phenomenology and neuroscience converge in time to avert a catastrophe? (The dramatic ending cannot be revealed here.) Outside the fictional world of the novel, Dan Lloyd (the author) appends a lengthy afterword, explaining the proposed theory of consciousness in more scholarly form.Radiant Cool is a real metaphysical thriller--based in current philosophy of mind--and a genuine scientific detective story--revealing a new interpretation of functional brain imaging. With its ingenious plot and its novel theory, Radiant Cool will be enjoyed in the classroom and the study for its entertaining presentation of phenomenology, neural networks, and brain imaging; but, most importantly, it will find its place as a groundbreaking theory of consciousness.
375 pages, Paperback
First published October 10, 2003
1 person is currently reading
101 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
August 10, 2016
I was a neuroscience thesis student and noir enthusiast so of course I read this. The specifics are little vague now, but but a theory of multi-dimensional modeling of consciousness, coupled with a disappearance plot hook, culminating in some kind of generative stream-of-consciousness meltdown: what's not to like?
October 13, 2014
The glaring thought I have upon finishing Radiant Cool is: "this book is the perfect exemplification of why I prefer literature to philosophy."
Okay okay now I do love philosophy, really -- I have a soft spot for old white dudes arguing with each other about Why We Exist & Other Philosophical Conundrums. But: I'm a fiction girl right down to the quick. I have my reasons, and Radiant Cool is a good jumping point for articulating them.
So:
Dan Lloyd is a philosophy professor (and, I guess, cognitive neuroscience aficionado) who has written a kind of double narrative based on his theory of consciousness. Part 1 is a thought experiment turned allegorical novel; Part 2 is a relatively informal academic treatise on the same ideas/theories contained in the novel. Is it original? Yes. Does it work? uhhhh...
Okay yes, kind of. Lloyd's clearly not a fiction writer -- though I imagine he'd say that some of the sketchy characterization, flawed plot-building, and ridiculous pacing is intentional (and, to be fair and without giving away the ending, much of it has to be for that ending to make sense). He hangs a lantern on it a few times -- and the fact that he (or a fictionalized version of himself) pops up in the narrative is pretty absurd; we're not in grandmaster territory here.
That said, it's pretty ingenious to approach academic consciousness theory in a fictional universe. Lit-Girl always beats out Philosophy-Girl in my heart -- the possibility of ideas and interpretations offered by literature trumps the strict structure and reasoning of philosophy. Sure, I want my heart involved (my thesis, in comparison to Miranda Sharpe's "The Thrill of Phenomenology," would certainly be "The Thrill of Literature"), but I also want my head forced in multiple directions simultaneously. Straight lines are not for Lit-Girls; we want explosions.
So, to that end, I endlessly appreciate Lloyd's claim -- in Part 2 -- that the future of "neurophenomenology" [the juncture where philosophy and cog-sci meet to discuss consciousness] requires an interpretive, not predictive/explanatory, approach. But that sort of renders the endless explanations of recurrent neural networks etc., immediately preceding this cool conclusion, unnecessary. Just me? I skimmed all the scientific data, at best; I found I wanted explanation of the characters. Who, or what, does Clare Lucid symbolize? Is she just an AI example personified, or was there more to that? Who is Grue in all this, and oh my god, Dan Lloyd: why the fuck does Grue disappear?!
Surely his answer to me would be: look closer, Lit-Girl, isn't that uncertainty what you want?
To which I would reply: yes, you're right, but you can't follow up a lit text with an explanatory one and not expect people to get frustrated when you don't explain your allegory.
The format of the book was unique, cool, fun, but it left a lot to be desired and I felt bereft when I finished. Either leave the novel as is, or work with your novel when you explain your ideas -- don't leave them disconnected, and they were disconnected. I think there's so much more to the Miranda Sharpe story than to Dan Lloyd's theory of consciousness --- but then, I would; I'm a Lit-Girl.
Another example of a book-as-Rorschach-test; you will find your own ideas in these pages. I am sure this is intentional, perhaps snarkily so. The problem is where you go from there: Dan Lloyd doesn't offer any theoretical meat interesting enough to play with; certainly not as interesting as the ending to Part 1.
And just as an aside: the entire. fucking. time. I read this book ------- my heart was yearning, YEARNING, for Scarlett Thomas. The End of Mr. Y was published two years after Radiant Cool, so I don't know if she'd read it before starting on her own version of essentially the same plot, but hers is so much better. Like I never full-on yearn for other authors while reading books and I was friggin pining, ok.
I don't know if that means anything. But I can say that I found it hard to feel for Radiant Cool the way I feel for other fiction, and ultimately that's what Lloyd is missing as he provides an example of his theory: fiction is meant to be felt as well as thought about. And that, too, is part of consciousness. Lloyd, I think, forgot that part.
Okay okay now I do love philosophy, really -- I have a soft spot for old white dudes arguing with each other about Why We Exist & Other Philosophical Conundrums. But: I'm a fiction girl right down to the quick. I have my reasons, and Radiant Cool is a good jumping point for articulating them.
So:
Dan Lloyd is a philosophy professor (and, I guess, cognitive neuroscience aficionado) who has written a kind of double narrative based on his theory of consciousness. Part 1 is a thought experiment turned allegorical novel; Part 2 is a relatively informal academic treatise on the same ideas/theories contained in the novel. Is it original? Yes. Does it work? uhhhh...
Okay yes, kind of. Lloyd's clearly not a fiction writer -- though I imagine he'd say that some of the sketchy characterization, flawed plot-building, and ridiculous pacing is intentional (and, to be fair and without giving away the ending, much of it has to be for that ending to make sense). He hangs a lantern on it a few times -- and the fact that he (or a fictionalized version of himself) pops up in the narrative is pretty absurd; we're not in grandmaster territory here.
That said, it's pretty ingenious to approach academic consciousness theory in a fictional universe. Lit-Girl always beats out Philosophy-Girl in my heart -- the possibility of ideas and interpretations offered by literature trumps the strict structure and reasoning of philosophy. Sure, I want my heart involved (my thesis, in comparison to Miranda Sharpe's "The Thrill of Phenomenology," would certainly be "The Thrill of Literature"), but I also want my head forced in multiple directions simultaneously. Straight lines are not for Lit-Girls; we want explosions.
So, to that end, I endlessly appreciate Lloyd's claim -- in Part 2 -- that the future of "neurophenomenology" [the juncture where philosophy and cog-sci meet to discuss consciousness] requires an interpretive, not predictive/explanatory, approach. But that sort of renders the endless explanations of recurrent neural networks etc., immediately preceding this cool conclusion, unnecessary. Just me? I skimmed all the scientific data, at best; I found I wanted explanation of the characters. Who, or what, does Clare Lucid symbolize? Is she just an AI example personified, or was there more to that? Who is Grue in all this, and oh my god, Dan Lloyd: why the fuck does Grue disappear?!
Surely his answer to me would be: look closer, Lit-Girl, isn't that uncertainty what you want?
To which I would reply: yes, you're right, but you can't follow up a lit text with an explanatory one and not expect people to get frustrated when you don't explain your allegory.
The format of the book was unique, cool, fun, but it left a lot to be desired and I felt bereft when I finished. Either leave the novel as is, or work with your novel when you explain your ideas -- don't leave them disconnected, and they were disconnected. I think there's so much more to the Miranda Sharpe story than to Dan Lloyd's theory of consciousness --- but then, I would; I'm a Lit-Girl.
Another example of a book-as-Rorschach-test; you will find your own ideas in these pages. I am sure this is intentional, perhaps snarkily so. The problem is where you go from there: Dan Lloyd doesn't offer any theoretical meat interesting enough to play with; certainly not as interesting as the ending to Part 1.
And just as an aside: the entire. fucking. time. I read this book ------- my heart was yearning, YEARNING, for Scarlett Thomas. The End of Mr. Y was published two years after Radiant Cool, so I don't know if she'd read it before starting on her own version of essentially the same plot, but hers is so much better. Like I never full-on yearn for other authors while reading books and I was friggin pining, ok.
I don't know if that means anything. But I can say that I found it hard to feel for Radiant Cool the way I feel for other fiction, and ultimately that's what Lloyd is missing as he provides an example of his theory: fiction is meant to be felt as well as thought about. And that, too, is part of consciousness. Lloyd, I think, forgot that part.
November 11, 2025
A new theory of consciousness involving Husserlian Phenomenology, neural nets and multidimensional scaling, wrapped in a noir-esque thriller narrated by a wisecracking female protagonist. Includes additional explanatory material at the end which should really be read alongside the main text as it illuminates much that was otherwise obscure.
March 11, 2023
Part One is a novel of sorts, playfully mimicking your average fast-paced crime thriller. Not usually a reader of fast-paced crime thrillers, I enjoyed it immensely. Dan Lloyd is a fun and lively writer, with allusions to pop culture (Victoria’s Secret, Emma Peel, Cheech and Chong) and intertextuality such as Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, and Borges’s famous story “The Aleph.” The title, “Radiant Cool”, is a phrase from Allen Ginsberg’s “Howl.” One chapter of illustrations morphs into a graphic novel of sorts. There’s a great deal of dialog with an educational quality.
One learns the oddest facts in the most unlikely places. On page 226 the author talks about a “well-known” Zen parable — previously unknown to me, from which at last we deduce where Donovan got the line “First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.”
Part Two then gets seriously educational. You're not required to read it. It is a non-fiction 100+ page attempt to summarize for laymen the current scholarly thinking on the problem of “consciousness.” Something about cognitive science versus neurophenomenology, some of it already previewed in the novel.
The author is an authority, a professor of philosophy. Your comprehension relies on abstract terminology that has precise meanings to those in the field. Terms like phenomenology, intentionality, superposition, transcendence, consciousness, computational cognitive neuroscience, retention and protention. Big names like Husserl, Sartre, Chalmers. Zen. Existentialism.
You’ll need some dedication to wade through it. As I continued to read, I continued to lose track of what he is trying to say. I have long been fascinated by such investigations, but sadly my limited brainpower has not been equal to the scholarship. It seems like a fairly good introduction to the subject, so I might read this through a time or three again. Or not. I’ll keep you updated.
One learns the oddest facts in the most unlikely places. On page 226 the author talks about a “well-known” Zen parable — previously unknown to me, from which at last we deduce where Donovan got the line “First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.”
Part Two then gets seriously educational. You're not required to read it. It is a non-fiction 100+ page attempt to summarize for laymen the current scholarly thinking on the problem of “consciousness.” Something about cognitive science versus neurophenomenology, some of it already previewed in the novel.
The author is an authority, a professor of philosophy. Your comprehension relies on abstract terminology that has precise meanings to those in the field. Terms like phenomenology, intentionality, superposition, transcendence, consciousness, computational cognitive neuroscience, retention and protention. Big names like Husserl, Sartre, Chalmers. Zen. Existentialism.
You’ll need some dedication to wade through it. As I continued to read, I continued to lose track of what he is trying to say. I have long been fascinated by such investigations, but sadly my limited brainpower has not been equal to the scholarship. It seems like a fairly good introduction to the subject, so I might read this through a time or three again. Or not. I’ll keep you updated.
October 22, 2019
A pulpy detective novel with a long appendix detailing a theory of consciousness. Individually they are fine (even if the novel is a bit cheesy) but together they don't add up to more. If the novel really would have helped with the theory, I could see combining them, but it doesn't (though it deals with a lot of the same ideas). Interesting but doesn't make a compelling whole.
July 8, 2022
A novel followed by a philosophical-scientific essay about the nature of consciousness. The novel is narrated in noir style. Then the essay reflects on issues raised in the novel. This is an interesting idea and it is pretty well carried out. I wish more serious philosophers would try stylistic experiments like this.
December 17, 2023
Fascinating! A real feat, a unique achievement. Witty and funny to top all. Is this pholisophy? Science? Both, delightfully blended in a gripping story.
This was a great read and I can say I feel more knowledgeable--and quite dumb, too: the last part is quite hard to really comprehend.
Anyhow, this book has to be read more than once, and remember: never will you read the same book twice ! ;-)
This was a great read and I can say I feel more knowledgeable--and quite dumb, too: the last part is quite hard to really comprehend.
Anyhow, this book has to be read more than once, and remember: never will you read the same book twice ! ;-)
Read
November 20, 2023Beyond me. DNF
October 8, 2014
The first half of this book is a novel in which the main character solves a murder mystery and comes up with a new theory of consciousness. The second half is Lloyd's philosophical discussion of consciounsness in the light of recent studies of the brain. He proposes multi-dimensional scaling as a mathematical technique which could shed light on how the brain produces consiousness.
June 15, 2016
Teorie scientifiche sulla coscienza confezionate in un romanzo thriller. Suona figo ma in realtà è stato parecchio difficile da leggere. La storia ha lasciato diversi punti interrogativi aperti e alcune cose richiedono conoscenze precedenti che io evidentemente non ho!
August 23, 2007
seems like the same tired old theory of consciousness to me. but then i've always had trouble with the Extra Mystery Added attitude that most philosophers adopt for this kind of discussion.
February 21, 2012
This book is a piece of crap. Seriously. Don't read it. The fiction is bad. The philosophy is worse. It is obscurantism of the worst kind. I can't believe I actually wasted my time reading it.
January 5, 2013
Pompous. Urgh. Had to restart recently, because I forgot everything I had read before.
January 28, 2013
A neuroscientist's wet dream when it comes to a novel.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews