What do you think?
Rate this book
Soul Dust: The Magic of Consciousness
A radically new view of the nature and purpose of consciousness
How is consciousness possible? What biological purpose does it serve? And why do we value it so highly? In Soul Dust , the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, a leading figure in consciousness research, proposes a startling new theory. Consciousness, he argues, is nothing less than a magical-mystery show that we stage for ourselves inside our own heads. This self-made show lights up the world for us and makes us feel special and transcendent. Thus consciousness paves the way for spirituality, and allows us, as human beings, to reap the rewards, and anxieties, of living in what Humphrey calls the "soul niche."
Tightly argued, intellectually gripping, and a joy to read, Soul Dust provides answers to the deepest questions. It shows how the problem of consciousness merges with questions that obsess us all―how life should be lived and the fear of death. Resting firmly on neuroscience and evolutionary theory, and drawing a wealth of insights from philosophy and literature, Soul Dust is an uncompromising yet life-affirming work―one that never loses sight of the majesty and wonder of consciousness.
How is consciousness possible? What biological purpose does it serve? And why do we value it so highly? In Soul Dust , the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, a leading figure in consciousness research, proposes a startling new theory. Consciousness, he argues, is nothing less than a magical-mystery show that we stage for ourselves inside our own heads. This self-made show lights up the world for us and makes us feel special and transcendent. Thus consciousness paves the way for spirituality, and allows us, as human beings, to reap the rewards, and anxieties, of living in what Humphrey calls the "soul niche."
Tightly argued, intellectually gripping, and a joy to read, Soul Dust provides answers to the deepest questions. It shows how the problem of consciousness merges with questions that obsess us all―how life should be lived and the fear of death. Resting firmly on neuroscience and evolutionary theory, and drawing a wealth of insights from philosophy and literature, Soul Dust is an uncompromising yet life-affirming work―one that never loses sight of the majesty and wonder of consciousness.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published January 6, 2011
39 people are currently reading
914 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 - 26 of 26 reviews
January 3, 2013
I was not nearly as impressed with the author's genius as the author seemed to be.
August 25, 2011
Tries to explain what consciousness is and how it evolved. I'm not sure I followed it all, and I'm also not sure that there weren't some unfollowable gaps in the reasoning. But there were some very interesting ideas and most of the writing was clear, if you can keep track of the few words that he invents. A fascinating subject!
April 20, 2014
This is a subject that interests me, as a psychologist and a person. The author suggests that life is a show we stage for ourselves. He presents some of the recent developments in the field of study of consciousness and also makes his own hypothesis about what it is all about, including that "consciousness is an entertainment to help you survive...it stems from inner monitoring." I enjoyed it.
By the was, I don't read 3 or 4 books in a few days; I read 3 or 4 books for weeks and then often finish around the same time.
By the was, I don't read 3 or 4 books in a few days; I read 3 or 4 books for weeks and then often finish around the same time.
February 11, 2022
I like the way this author extrapolates his observations as he grapples with the hard problem of philosophy. This study expands the territory of the mind and consciousness in general.
stopped-reading
January 20, 2025Sounded very promising and interesting but as I couldn't find traction with some of the philosophical-theoretical underpinnings I just felt it wasn't worth pursuing. Might fit for others.
June 23, 2024
A STUDY OF CONSCIOUSNESS THAT INCLUDES THE “HUMAN SOUL”
Nicholas Humphrey wrote the ‘Invitation’ to this 2011 book, “This book… takes off from the last few pages of ‘Seeing Red.’ … I have reprised some of the ideas where needed. Apart from this, however, the arguments here are new. They are also, I must admit, largely untried by my peers. In this new book I have deliberately tried to… [follow] a different set of rules from those that have traditionally framed the discussion of consciousness… If the book reads… like a journey of discovery, that is because this is exactly what it has been in the writing. My book is intended to be a work of serious science and philosophy, and I hope it will be judged as such… it becomes a central part of my argument that only by connecting to the interests and anxieties of conscious human beings in general can we begin to see the evolutionary raison d’être for the existence of consciousness in the first place…. I come to focus… on issues having to do with life, death, and the meaning of existence… [This book] begins with the most basic questions about the nature of conscious awareness and sensation, becomes a book about the evolution of spirituality and how humans have made their home in what I call the ‘soul niche.’ Though I have no belief whatever in the supernatural, I make no apology for putting the human soul back where I am sure it belongs: and the center of consciousness studies.” (Pg. x-xi)
He continues in the first chapter, “In this book I will address the questions of what ‘sentience,’ ‘selfhood,’ and ‘soulfulness’ amount to… I will propose a solution to the ‘hard problem of consciousness… There are philosophers who think the problem is simply too hard to admit of a solution… I disagree. I acknowledge, of course, that theories have not been doing too well in imagining the solution. I am as impressed as anyone by what SEEM to be the insuperable difficulties. But I suggest… [t]he fact that something SEEMS to have mysterious and inexplicable features does not necessarily mean it really has them.” (Pg. 4)
He goes on, “The first task for the book, then, must be to come up with at least the beginnings of a plausible theory of what consciousness IS and how it relates to the brain. To do this I will… argue for a radically new account of what we mean when we say that ‘it is like something’ to experience sensations. I will make a proposal as to what the thing in the brain that the subject represents as ‘being like something’ really is, and I will suggest what its biological origins in nonconscious animals may have been.” (Pg. 23-24)
He explains, “consciousness … is indeed the product of a highly improbable bit of biological engineering… that gives rise to all sorts of mysterious impressions in our minds, yet something that has a relatively straightforward physical explanation… In general, when I talk about consciousness I mean ‘phenomenal consciousness.’ A subject is ‘phenomenally conscious’ … when and if there is something it’s like to be him at this moment… when he experiences FEELINGS, or what philosophers call ‘qualia.’ … The subject is ‘phenomenally conscious’ just when he experiences sensations as HAVING these peculiar features. To experience sensations ‘as having’ these features is to form a MENTAL REPRESENTATION to that effect… Thus ‘consciousness’ … is the COGNITIVE state of entertaining such mental representations. Consciousness can change the subject’s life just to the extent that these representations feed forward to influence what he thinks and does.” (Pg. 6-7)
He clarifies, “sensation… is still essentially the way in which you represent your interaction with the environmental stimuli that touch your body… Perception is the way you represent the objective world out there beyond your body… Sensation, by contrast, is always about what is happening to YOU and how YOU FEEL about it.” (Pg. 44)
He suggests, “What if the role of phenomenal consciousness is … not to ENABLE you to do something you could not do otherwise but rather the ENCOURAGE you to do something you would not do otherwise: to make you TAKE AN INTEREST in things that otherwise would not interest you, to MIND about things you otherwise would not mind about, or to SET YOURSELF GOALS you otherwise would not set?” (Pg. 72)
He states, “no nonhuman animals MAKE of consciousness what human beings do. Consciousness may indeed contribute to a sense of self in nonhuman animals. But there is no evidence that any nonhuman animals, whatever the level of their consciousness, have gone on to invent the idea of a ‘person,’ and ‘I,’ let alone a ‘soul’ with a life beyond the body.” (Pg. 78)
He observes, “The great object of life… is the existence of a CONSCIOUS SELF… The concept of self is a complex one… in the course of evolutionary history, selves have some to exist on different levels in different species. The self of an adult human being certainly has no equivalent in animals (or human infants, for that matter)… I want to focus on something basic: Let’s call it the ‘core self,’ by which I mean no more or less than the owner and occupier of the thick moment of consciousness.” (Pg. 89-90)
He comments, “Nature, in designing your mind, has contrive that the chain of causation is largely invisible to you. You as a subject to not have mental access to the events in the brain that PRECEDE your ‘deciding to act.’ The result is that the first you know of your decision is when it is in front of you. And naturally enough, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, you credit your ‘I’ with being the PRIME MOVER in choosing this action or that.” (Pg. 131)
He states, “The theologian Keith Ward has written: ‘The whole point of talking of the soul is to remind ourselves constantly that we transcend all the conditions of our material existence…’ So here is where I am driving… in a world where people in general have THIS OPINION of themselves---and the opinion is in fact nearly universal---is to live in what we may call the ‘soul niche.’ … Soul land is a territory of the spirit. It is a place where the magical interiority of human minds makes itself felt on every side… It is a place where the fate of your own consciousness and that of others is a constant talking point.” (Pg. 158-159)
He acknowledges, “for most human beings belief in personal immortality IS common sense… based on the evidence. What evidence is this? I would say there are three minimal requirements… First, your conscious Ego should evidently be an IMMATERIAL entity not tied to your body… Second, it should be capable leading an INDEPENDENT life… Third, it should evidently have endless STAYING POWER… immateriality is never going to be a problem. It is at the very root of what phenomenal consciousness seems to be about… What, then, other than wishful thinking, could possibly suggest that your own soul might have the miraculous capacity to go on indefinitely? I believe the answer… lies with the evidence of sleep… in your experience… you always wake up and come to… but as the very same YOU you were before… I think that unless and until extraneous arguments come into play (most insidiously the arguments of modern natural science), [people] have good enough REASONS for believing. Human beings rationally ought to believe in an afterlife. No wonder, then, that almost everyone in the world does believe in it… making it in effect a species-wide human trait.” (Pg. 197)
He notes, “the case for consciousness-driven spirituality’s being adaptive rests of evidence … of much greater relevance to individual success in life. In fact, I might argue… that spirituality is probably all the more adaptive WITHOUT religion, because religious belief---especially belief in God---can be something of a drag on it.” (Pg. 205)
He summarizes, “With the emergence of human beings, there came into existence a species whose members reflected on their experience a species whose members reflected on their experience in quite new ways. Humans… took an unprecedented interest in the phenomenological details of what it is like to be there and pondered its metaphysical ramifications… There was already quite enough ‘unused’ potential in the existing qualities of consciousness for the new demands to be met without departing radically from the original tradition… Phenomenal consciousness was, in this respect, preadapted to take on its expanded role in humans.” (Pg. 212)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the philosophy of consciousness.
Nicholas Humphrey wrote the ‘Invitation’ to this 2011 book, “This book… takes off from the last few pages of ‘Seeing Red.’ … I have reprised some of the ideas where needed. Apart from this, however, the arguments here are new. They are also, I must admit, largely untried by my peers. In this new book I have deliberately tried to… [follow] a different set of rules from those that have traditionally framed the discussion of consciousness… If the book reads… like a journey of discovery, that is because this is exactly what it has been in the writing. My book is intended to be a work of serious science and philosophy, and I hope it will be judged as such… it becomes a central part of my argument that only by connecting to the interests and anxieties of conscious human beings in general can we begin to see the evolutionary raison d’être for the existence of consciousness in the first place…. I come to focus… on issues having to do with life, death, and the meaning of existence… [This book] begins with the most basic questions about the nature of conscious awareness and sensation, becomes a book about the evolution of spirituality and how humans have made their home in what I call the ‘soul niche.’ Though I have no belief whatever in the supernatural, I make no apology for putting the human soul back where I am sure it belongs: and the center of consciousness studies.” (Pg. x-xi)
He continues in the first chapter, “In this book I will address the questions of what ‘sentience,’ ‘selfhood,’ and ‘soulfulness’ amount to… I will propose a solution to the ‘hard problem of consciousness… There are philosophers who think the problem is simply too hard to admit of a solution… I disagree. I acknowledge, of course, that theories have not been doing too well in imagining the solution. I am as impressed as anyone by what SEEM to be the insuperable difficulties. But I suggest… [t]he fact that something SEEMS to have mysterious and inexplicable features does not necessarily mean it really has them.” (Pg. 4)
He goes on, “The first task for the book, then, must be to come up with at least the beginnings of a plausible theory of what consciousness IS and how it relates to the brain. To do this I will… argue for a radically new account of what we mean when we say that ‘it is like something’ to experience sensations. I will make a proposal as to what the thing in the brain that the subject represents as ‘being like something’ really is, and I will suggest what its biological origins in nonconscious animals may have been.” (Pg. 23-24)
He explains, “consciousness … is indeed the product of a highly improbable bit of biological engineering… that gives rise to all sorts of mysterious impressions in our minds, yet something that has a relatively straightforward physical explanation… In general, when I talk about consciousness I mean ‘phenomenal consciousness.’ A subject is ‘phenomenally conscious’ … when and if there is something it’s like to be him at this moment… when he experiences FEELINGS, or what philosophers call ‘qualia.’ … The subject is ‘phenomenally conscious’ just when he experiences sensations as HAVING these peculiar features. To experience sensations ‘as having’ these features is to form a MENTAL REPRESENTATION to that effect… Thus ‘consciousness’ … is the COGNITIVE state of entertaining such mental representations. Consciousness can change the subject’s life just to the extent that these representations feed forward to influence what he thinks and does.” (Pg. 6-7)
He clarifies, “sensation… is still essentially the way in which you represent your interaction with the environmental stimuli that touch your body… Perception is the way you represent the objective world out there beyond your body… Sensation, by contrast, is always about what is happening to YOU and how YOU FEEL about it.” (Pg. 44)
He suggests, “What if the role of phenomenal consciousness is … not to ENABLE you to do something you could not do otherwise but rather the ENCOURAGE you to do something you would not do otherwise: to make you TAKE AN INTEREST in things that otherwise would not interest you, to MIND about things you otherwise would not mind about, or to SET YOURSELF GOALS you otherwise would not set?” (Pg. 72)
He states, “no nonhuman animals MAKE of consciousness what human beings do. Consciousness may indeed contribute to a sense of self in nonhuman animals. But there is no evidence that any nonhuman animals, whatever the level of their consciousness, have gone on to invent the idea of a ‘person,’ and ‘I,’ let alone a ‘soul’ with a life beyond the body.” (Pg. 78)
He observes, “The great object of life… is the existence of a CONSCIOUS SELF… The concept of self is a complex one… in the course of evolutionary history, selves have some to exist on different levels in different species. The self of an adult human being certainly has no equivalent in animals (or human infants, for that matter)… I want to focus on something basic: Let’s call it the ‘core self,’ by which I mean no more or less than the owner and occupier of the thick moment of consciousness.” (Pg. 89-90)
He comments, “Nature, in designing your mind, has contrive that the chain of causation is largely invisible to you. You as a subject to not have mental access to the events in the brain that PRECEDE your ‘deciding to act.’ The result is that the first you know of your decision is when it is in front of you. And naturally enough, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, you credit your ‘I’ with being the PRIME MOVER in choosing this action or that.” (Pg. 131)
He states, “The theologian Keith Ward has written: ‘The whole point of talking of the soul is to remind ourselves constantly that we transcend all the conditions of our material existence…’ So here is where I am driving… in a world where people in general have THIS OPINION of themselves---and the opinion is in fact nearly universal---is to live in what we may call the ‘soul niche.’ … Soul land is a territory of the spirit. It is a place where the magical interiority of human minds makes itself felt on every side… It is a place where the fate of your own consciousness and that of others is a constant talking point.” (Pg. 158-159)
He acknowledges, “for most human beings belief in personal immortality IS common sense… based on the evidence. What evidence is this? I would say there are three minimal requirements… First, your conscious Ego should evidently be an IMMATERIAL entity not tied to your body… Second, it should be capable leading an INDEPENDENT life… Third, it should evidently have endless STAYING POWER… immateriality is never going to be a problem. It is at the very root of what phenomenal consciousness seems to be about… What, then, other than wishful thinking, could possibly suggest that your own soul might have the miraculous capacity to go on indefinitely? I believe the answer… lies with the evidence of sleep… in your experience… you always wake up and come to… but as the very same YOU you were before… I think that unless and until extraneous arguments come into play (most insidiously the arguments of modern natural science), [people] have good enough REASONS for believing. Human beings rationally ought to believe in an afterlife. No wonder, then, that almost everyone in the world does believe in it… making it in effect a species-wide human trait.” (Pg. 197)
He notes, “the case for consciousness-driven spirituality’s being adaptive rests of evidence … of much greater relevance to individual success in life. In fact, I might argue… that spirituality is probably all the more adaptive WITHOUT religion, because religious belief---especially belief in God---can be something of a drag on it.” (Pg. 205)
He summarizes, “With the emergence of human beings, there came into existence a species whose members reflected on their experience a species whose members reflected on their experience in quite new ways. Humans… took an unprecedented interest in the phenomenological details of what it is like to be there and pondered its metaphysical ramifications… There was already quite enough ‘unused’ potential in the existing qualities of consciousness for the new demands to be met without departing radically from the original tradition… Phenomenal consciousness was, in this respect, preadapted to take on its expanded role in humans.” (Pg. 212)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the philosophy of consciousness.
January 31, 2021
The topic of consciousness is one of the most difficult to conceive of. A big part of it is because that ineffable feeling of being "here" as "yourself" is hard to reconcile with the material workings of the world around us which we do not dispute. Another important part is simply because of our lack of understanding about the systematic material process that would make up a conscious human creature, aka, "The Hard Problem" of consciousness. The confluence of these two reasons have made the understanding of consciousness seem untenable and unapproachable. Just my two cents - let's not underestimate the human ingenuity that has shone through the cloudy, so-called ineffable, and consecrated mysteries of our past. Knowing how think about something is the first step in solving a deeply complicated mystery. In Soul Dust, we embark on a journey to understand what exactly consciousness is and isn't, and the evolutionary journey we have taken as human beings to become conscious creatures in a different sense than the other animals we share the Earth with. And of course the author will attempt to explain it. There's many interesting discussions in the book and I did enjoy the read. But to be frank, I did find some concepts abstract and it was not easy to follow without a certain heightened level of focus. I'm not a professional philosopher nor a scientist, but I am deeply interested in both - especially science. I have read laborious Daniel Dennett Books on consciousness so I have some experience. Therefore, I must contend that when the author mentioned that the text was written for the "general reader" he meant the general science or philosophy reader. I have strong reservations that somebody who as interested in the subject matter as they may be, would be able to follow and quickly adopt the newly invented phrases in the text. And then wrap it all together as those phrases would be reoccurring to explain new concepts. As an example, I didn't have the requisite focus when I first read the term he coined "sentience", so when it came up again and again I had to go back and reread what it meant. So my warning to a new reader is make sure you are 100% focused when reading, so concepts don't seem convoluted later.
July 20, 2013
Don't be misled by the title. Nicholas Humphrey is not a new age Guru. He is a hardcore scientist and philosopher. He does not ask us to believe in the existence of spirit beyond the physical body. Consciousness, he claims, is a very much a creation of the neurophysics of the human brain.
Humphrey begins by putting forward a theory as to how consciousness could be realized in the brain. This part of the book is rather difficult to read, and even more difficult to understand. I can't claim to have understood it. But it does not matter, as the important part of the book is not dependent on the mechanism that gives rise to consciousness.
The question Humphrey asks is whether consciousness adds to evolutionary fitness in any way? Does a conscious organism have a better chance of surviving than an automaton? His answer is a resounding yes. He takes into account the criticism that consciousness does not add to the organism's skill at dealing with the environment and does not refute it. However, consciousness gives the organism a higher stake in surviving. A conscious individual lives a more interesting, more meaningful life, and therefore strives to continue the interesting 'show'.
With this as the basic thesis Humphrey delves into poetry, art, spirituality and soul. All these are outcomes of our enjoyment of conscious living and our desire to enrich the experience further. His quotations from works of literature are very apt and beautiful. They helped me appreciate the beauty of these works a lot better.
The downside of this rich conscious life is that human beings are the only species who know that they will die. The fear of death and the attempts to cope with it form the subject matter of the penultimate chapter that goes into the very meaning of life.
This book takes up an interesting thesis, develops it well in a readable manner and helps us gain a new perspective on art, spirituality and the meaning of life. It is one of the most meaningful books I have read. Strongly recommended.
Humphrey begins by putting forward a theory as to how consciousness could be realized in the brain. This part of the book is rather difficult to read, and even more difficult to understand. I can't claim to have understood it. But it does not matter, as the important part of the book is not dependent on the mechanism that gives rise to consciousness.
The question Humphrey asks is whether consciousness adds to evolutionary fitness in any way? Does a conscious organism have a better chance of surviving than an automaton? His answer is a resounding yes. He takes into account the criticism that consciousness does not add to the organism's skill at dealing with the environment and does not refute it. However, consciousness gives the organism a higher stake in surviving. A conscious individual lives a more interesting, more meaningful life, and therefore strives to continue the interesting 'show'.
With this as the basic thesis Humphrey delves into poetry, art, spirituality and soul. All these are outcomes of our enjoyment of conscious living and our desire to enrich the experience further. His quotations from works of literature are very apt and beautiful. They helped me appreciate the beauty of these works a lot better.
The downside of this rich conscious life is that human beings are the only species who know that they will die. The fear of death and the attempts to cope with it form the subject matter of the penultimate chapter that goes into the very meaning of life.
This book takes up an interesting thesis, develops it well in a readable manner and helps us gain a new perspective on art, spirituality and the meaning of life. It is one of the most meaningful books I have read. Strongly recommended.
Read
May 15, 2023I want to make it clear I did not read this of my own accord. No, one of my students had to read it for her class on consciousness and she needed assistance with a project for class.
I have an MSc in Psychology. I more specialize in biological psychology. But this... this was one of the most difficult texts I have ever read. Frankly, I spent far too much of my time trying to understand this (I so want to say drivel but I'll refrain) text. Not to say I hated this text but Humphrey tends to be long-winded, self-aggrandizing, and has a penchant for inaccessible prose even for the decently educated psychology folks. Once my student and I figured out what the hell Humphrey was saying, it did make some semblance of sense and I agreed with most of his arguments... I think?
I think he could have distilled his argument to be far more concise and more accessible to folks. Or maybe this text is not even for folks like myself - someone in the field of psychology but not in the study of consciousness.
I have an MSc in Psychology. I more specialize in biological psychology. But this... this was one of the most difficult texts I have ever read. Frankly, I spent far too much of my time trying to understand this (I so want to say drivel but I'll refrain) text. Not to say I hated this text but Humphrey tends to be long-winded, self-aggrandizing, and has a penchant for inaccessible prose even for the decently educated psychology folks. Once my student and I figured out what the hell Humphrey was saying, it did make some semblance of sense and I agreed with most of his arguments... I think?
I think he could have distilled his argument to be far more concise and more accessible to folks. Or maybe this text is not even for folks like myself - someone in the field of psychology but not in the study of consciousness.
June 12, 2017
Part of my research on consciousness for an upcoming project. This was more of a philosophical read on the definition of consciousness, and its benefits and problems, than about the process that may have brought it about.
Lots of interesting ideas, and the book is sprouting many coloured bookmark tabs where I found ideas worth exploring further, or springboards for ideas to put in the story.
Lots of interesting ideas, and the book is sprouting many coloured bookmark tabs where I found ideas worth exploring further, or springboards for ideas to put in the story.
July 2, 2018
I dont know where to begin. This book discusses a tbeory of how evolution promoted consiousness and why. It puts forward the idea that it was evolution that gave us our souls and how the human race was spiritual long before god & religion appeared.it was fascinating!
to-keep-reference
October 29, 2019Humphrey is an atheist and suggested the analogy of religion to viruses to Richard Dawkins
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
January 7, 2024
Dışarda okurken kuantum şeyi sanacaklar diye ödüm kopuyordu, pembelik ve ruh, o riski almaya bile değmedi
February 25, 2019
'Soul Dust' is Nicholas Humphrey’s fourth and perhaps final major popular work about consciousness. Subtitled the magic of consciousness, it takes the reader through some of his earlier concepts, especially those in 'Seeing Red,' before providing a conclusion to decades of groundbreaking work.
This book emphasises the role of natural selection in the evolution of consciousness, first mentioned in the trailblazing 'The Inner Eye.' Natural selection, Humphrey reasons, must have had something to work upon in order to select so strongly for consciousness. That something, he suggests, is the joy of living – the fact that we are important, both to ourselves and to others, and that we delight in the experience of living, which makes survival in social groups all the more likely. It’s a brilliant notion, which he examines from the perspective of an Andromedan ‘psychological zombie,’ but also through wondering whether or not other species are conscious – Humphrey did research with monkeys and apes for many years, and even worked for a few months alongside Dian Fossey.
Once the main thesis is put forward and argued, there comes a third section, more philosophically speculative than the rest of the book, and indeed of his earlier work, in which he ponders the role of death in the evolution of consciousness. We, after all, are the only species who can fear death.
Here I have to admit I part company with Humphrey. In this book Humphrey deliberately uses the word soul – he posits a ‘soul niche,’ which emerges in parallel with the evolution of consciousness, and of course the word in plain for all to see in the book’s title. But Humphrey, an avowed atheist who has written extensively on atheism, is aware that the word soul has baggage. “Too much baggage?” he asks, coming to the answer no. My answer however is yes. Humphrey wisely points out that religion is parasitic upon spirituality, which, like me, he sees as a far earlier concept (my guess would be 80,000 – 100,00 years old: Humphrey wonders if spirituality arrived at the time of the Cultural Revolution 40,000 years ago, or is perhaps 200,000 years old, when homo sapiens first appeared in Africa). Spirituality he sees as a concept – the immortal spirit or soul – emerging from the experience of consciousness itself. It is, he suggests, an aspect of our deepest psychology. I see the concept as based in the experience of consciousness but having its roots in culture, not psychology. It is, I think, a human answer within the greater framework of meaning.
I also think that Humphrey, like other authors (Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking spring to mind), is unwise in using the vocabulary of religion to describe purely human concepts. The notion of spirit or soul, which Humphrey sees as an inevitable result of consciousness, he describes as something which allows human beings to survive better as individuals. I however see the concept as one devised in cultural settings to explain a human experience. I agree with Humphrey that the concept of spirit was inevitable, but I think its roots lie in the prehistoric imagination, not in some deeper psychology which we can never escape. As a consequence, I think talk of spirits and souls in a book of this significance is flawed, if not imprudent.
Of course, that rather begs the question, “what would you use instead?” It’s not an easy one to answer, but I think when referring to human individuality, character or identity in discussions such as these we would be better off using a neutral word like self or being.
'Soul Dust' ends with a meditation on coping with death. As Humphrey observes, there are three main ways of coping: avoiding the concept entirely by living hedonistically for the moment; allowing yourself to merge with the greater human culture as you age; and positing an immortal soul, i.e. denying the obvious. This latter section of the book feels slightly out of place when set against the rest of the work, but only a little. And while I don’t agree with Humphrey here, his thoughts are, as ever, superbly argued and very well written.
This is another exceptional work, as thought provoking as all his previous books.
This book emphasises the role of natural selection in the evolution of consciousness, first mentioned in the trailblazing 'The Inner Eye.' Natural selection, Humphrey reasons, must have had something to work upon in order to select so strongly for consciousness. That something, he suggests, is the joy of living – the fact that we are important, both to ourselves and to others, and that we delight in the experience of living, which makes survival in social groups all the more likely. It’s a brilliant notion, which he examines from the perspective of an Andromedan ‘psychological zombie,’ but also through wondering whether or not other species are conscious – Humphrey did research with monkeys and apes for many years, and even worked for a few months alongside Dian Fossey.
Once the main thesis is put forward and argued, there comes a third section, more philosophically speculative than the rest of the book, and indeed of his earlier work, in which he ponders the role of death in the evolution of consciousness. We, after all, are the only species who can fear death.
Here I have to admit I part company with Humphrey. In this book Humphrey deliberately uses the word soul – he posits a ‘soul niche,’ which emerges in parallel with the evolution of consciousness, and of course the word in plain for all to see in the book’s title. But Humphrey, an avowed atheist who has written extensively on atheism, is aware that the word soul has baggage. “Too much baggage?” he asks, coming to the answer no. My answer however is yes. Humphrey wisely points out that religion is parasitic upon spirituality, which, like me, he sees as a far earlier concept (my guess would be 80,000 – 100,00 years old: Humphrey wonders if spirituality arrived at the time of the Cultural Revolution 40,000 years ago, or is perhaps 200,000 years old, when homo sapiens first appeared in Africa). Spirituality he sees as a concept – the immortal spirit or soul – emerging from the experience of consciousness itself. It is, he suggests, an aspect of our deepest psychology. I see the concept as based in the experience of consciousness but having its roots in culture, not psychology. It is, I think, a human answer within the greater framework of meaning.
I also think that Humphrey, like other authors (Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking spring to mind), is unwise in using the vocabulary of religion to describe purely human concepts. The notion of spirit or soul, which Humphrey sees as an inevitable result of consciousness, he describes as something which allows human beings to survive better as individuals. I however see the concept as one devised in cultural settings to explain a human experience. I agree with Humphrey that the concept of spirit was inevitable, but I think its roots lie in the prehistoric imagination, not in some deeper psychology which we can never escape. As a consequence, I think talk of spirits and souls in a book of this significance is flawed, if not imprudent.
Of course, that rather begs the question, “what would you use instead?” It’s not an easy one to answer, but I think when referring to human individuality, character or identity in discussions such as these we would be better off using a neutral word like self or being.
'Soul Dust' ends with a meditation on coping with death. As Humphrey observes, there are three main ways of coping: avoiding the concept entirely by living hedonistically for the moment; allowing yourself to merge with the greater human culture as you age; and positing an immortal soul, i.e. denying the obvious. This latter section of the book feels slightly out of place when set against the rest of the work, but only a little. And while I don’t agree with Humphrey here, his thoughts are, as ever, superbly argued and very well written.
This is another exceptional work, as thought provoking as all his previous books.
December 23, 2019
Interesting insights on the hard problem of consciousness, psychology of art and claims a little existential fear of death, making us strive for immortality, might be good for our species survival/reproduction.
January 21, 2013
I've read some of Humphrey's earlier books on consciousness, and he has an interesting approach to trying to understand and explain the mystery of consciousness. Soul Dust really doesn't contain much that cannot be found in his previous works, but it is a good synopsis of his ideas.
If I can be overly simplistic, his basic idea is that the brain creates, within the brain itself, a model of the external world. This model includes various internal monitoring systems, and it is from these internal monitoring systems that the self derives: the self is the aspect of the brain that monitors the internal model of the external world.
Now, Humphrey's model leaves many questions unanswered, especially explaining how the raw feel of qualia could arise from completely materialistic processes, but he provides an interesting foundation from which philosophers and neuroscientists might begin to try to answer the hard problem of consciousness.
If I can be overly simplistic, his basic idea is that the brain creates, within the brain itself, a model of the external world. This model includes various internal monitoring systems, and it is from these internal monitoring systems that the self derives: the self is the aspect of the brain that monitors the internal model of the external world.
Now, Humphrey's model leaves many questions unanswered, especially explaining how the raw feel of qualia could arise from completely materialistic processes, but he provides an interesting foundation from which philosophers and neuroscientists might begin to try to answer the hard problem of consciousness.
March 18, 2012
A bit complex at times, but overall this phenomenal (literally!) text presents a largely interesting perspective on the evolutionary role human consciousness plays. Very well thought out arguments just seem to make perfect sense upon reflection; particularly when Humphrey discusses why evolution might have come to be, and what purpose it serves in increasing our fitness in terms of natural selection.
Humphrey's writing is as clear as possible with such complex subject matter. In many ways, this book is incredibly uplifting, as its basic idea is a very positive one about the nature of human existence. If you're interested in philosophy and up to a challenging read at times, this is a worthwhile text that could easily change your perspective on life itself.
Humphrey's writing is as clear as possible with such complex subject matter. In many ways, this book is incredibly uplifting, as its basic idea is a very positive one about the nature of human existence. If you're interested in philosophy and up to a challenging read at times, this is a worthwhile text that could easily change your perspective on life itself.
February 12, 2012
Nick Humphrey's take on the origins and role of consciousness in humans and other animals, of interest to anyone with an appetite for contemporary philosophy of mind, in particular the relationship between the internal world of mental experience and the so-called neurological correlates of consciousness. Humphrey's main message, after presenting his own functionalist (or functionalist-inspired) view, is that consciousness is evolutionarily adaptive in humans and, to a lesser extent, nonhuman animals with less-developed self-awareness.
I found it an enjoyable exploration of that line of thought.
I found it an enjoyable exploration of that line of thought.
June 17, 2012
Amazingly well thought out book, filled with all sorts of great explanations for the objects in conscious awareness - thoughts, sensations, what it is like to be. However, the author never touched on the problem he proposed to solve - the hard problem of consciousness. The machine was explained wonderfully, but the ghost was never touched on. He never explained how an aware observer could arise out of a material reality a instead sticking to the observed objects off awareness. Despite my disappointment regarding this failure, the explanations he does make for the rest of consciousness are fascinating.
January 31, 2016
Each day we awake we experience a new miracle: consciousness. Every sleep cycle testifies to a letting go, maybe some dreams, and then reappears with a familiar recognition that I am the same person I was before my journey but awake now, aware now, and alert now.
Humphrey's book has changed the game for me. My conscious capacities become a magical loop of spiral experience and the illusion of self shimmers in iridescence like dew in a sun ray.
Humphrey's book has changed the game for me. My conscious capacities become a magical loop of spiral experience and the illusion of self shimmers in iridescence like dew in a sun ray.
July 1, 2011
This was difficult to follow in a number of places, probably necessarily so considering the subject matter. However, the basic premises made a lot of sense to me from evolutionary and practical perspectives. Very interesting on the whole, and also entertaining; I haven't seen consciousness discussed in quite this way before.
June 29, 2018
Does conscious organism have a better chance of surviving than an automaton?
The author believes that concious individuals live a more interesting, more meaningful life and therefore strives to continue the interesting "show". The book takes up an interesting theory and helps us gain a new perspective on Art, spirituality and the meaning of life.
The author believes that concious individuals live a more interesting, more meaningful life and therefore strives to continue the interesting "show". The book takes up an interesting theory and helps us gain a new perspective on Art, spirituality and the meaning of life.
November 5, 2011
As wonderfully complicated as our mind itself, yet simple once you get the mechanisms behind it. I had to think alot about the complex premises to draw my conclusions out of it. But it was definitively worth it.
August 14, 2011
Save this for a quiet moment. Entertaining and well-written but not a book for the subway or other place with distractions.
August 2, 2012
Very dense book and some concepts I didn't understand but highly insightful read. I see it as a mere snippet of a much larger theory that possibly can't be conveyed within just a book.
June 27, 2013
A hard read for a philosophy class centered around the question "What is a soul?"
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews