欧宝娱乐

Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

袠薪泻芯谐薪懈褌芯: 褌邪泄薪懈褟褌 卸懈胁芯褌 薪邪 屑芯蟹褗泻邪

Rate this book
袛e泄胁懈写 袠谐褗谢屑邪薪 (1971) 械 屑芯卸械 斜懈 薪邪泄-斜谢械褋褌褟褖懈褟褌 屑谢邪写 褍褔械薪 薪邪 袗屑械褉懈泻邪; 褋胁械褌芯胁薪芯懈蟹胁械褋褌械薪 薪械胁褉芯斜懈芯谢芯谐, 懈蟹胁械褋褌械薪 褋褗褋 褋胁芯褟褌邪 褉邪斜芯褌邪 胁褗褉褏褍 胁褗蟹锌褉懈械屑邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 胁褉械屑械褌芯, 褋懈薪械褋褌械蟹懈褟褌邪 懈 懈蟹锌芯谢蟹胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 薪械胁褉芯谢芯谐懈褟褌邪 胁 薪邪泻邪蟹邪褌械谢薪芯褌芯 锌褉邪胁芯. 袙褋械泻懈, 泻芯泄褌芯 械 锌褉芯褔械谢 薪械谐芯胁懈褌械 斜械褋褌褋械谢褗褉懈 懈谢懈 械 褋谢褍褕邪谢 薪械谐芯胁懈褌械 谢械泻褑懈懈 锌芯 TED 芯薪谢邪泄薪, 蟹薪邪械, 褔械 袠谐褗谢屑邪薪 懈屑邪 写邪褉斜邪褌邪 写邪 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褟 褋谢芯卸薪懈褌械 懈写械懈 锌芯 械写懈薪 写芯褋褌褗锌械薪 懈 写褉褍卸械谢褞斜械薪 薪邪褔懈薪.

袠谐褗谢屑邪薪 械 写芯泻褌芯褉 锌芯 薪械胁褉芯斜懈芯谢芯谐懈褟 懈 锌褋懈褏懈邪褌褉懈褟, 泻芯泄褌芯 芯斜邪褔械 懈屑邪 懈 斜邪泻邪谢邪胁褗褉褋泻邪 褋褌械锌械薪 锌芯 斜褉懈褌邪薪褋泻邪 懈 邪屑械褉懈泻邪薪褋泻邪 谢懈褌械褉邪褌褍褉邪. 袙 薪械谐芯 褋械 褋褗褔械褌邪胁邪褌 褋褌褉邪褋褌薪邪 谢褞斜芯胁 泻褗屑 谢懈褌械褉邪褌褍褉邪褌邪 懈 薪械褍褌芯谢懈屑芯 薪邪褍褔薪芯 谢褞斜芯锌懈褌褋褌胁芯. 孝芯泄 械 褋泻褉芯屑械薪 懈 芯斜懈泻薪芯胁械薪 褔芯胁械泻, 懈 胁 褋褗褖芯褌芯 胁褉械屑械 懈蟹泻谢褞褔懈褌械谢薪芯 褔邪褉芯胁械薪 懈 懈薪褌械褉械褋械薪 谐芯褋褌, 泻芯泄褌芯 懈蟹锌褉邪胁褟 薪邪 泻褉邪泻邪 锌褍斜谢懈泻邪褌邪 胁 褌械谢械胁懈蟹懈芯薪薪懈褌械 褋褌褍写懈邪 懈 胁 褍薪懈胁械褉褋懈褌械褌褋泻懈褌械 邪褍写懈褌芯褉懈懈. 袨褌 胁褋懈褔泻芯 褌芯胁邪 褋械 械 锌芯谢褍褔懈谢芯 锌褉械泻褉邪褋薪芯 褋褗褔械褌邪薪懈械, 懈 写芯褋械谐褗褌 褋 褌邪谢邪薪褌谢懈胁懈褌械 屑褍 褌胁芯褉斜懈 械 懈蟹褌芯褔薪懈泻 薪邪 褍薪懈泻邪谢薪邪 懈薪褌械谢械泻褌褍邪谢薪邪 薪邪褋谢邪写邪.

袙 "袠薪泻芯谐薪懈褌芯" 袛械泄胁懈写 袠谐褗谢屑邪薪 褌胁褗褉写懈, 褔械 锌芯胁械褔械褌芯 芯褌 芯锌械褉邪褑懈懈褌械, 泻芯懈褌芯 懈蟹胁褗褉褕胁邪 屑芯蟹褗泻褗褌, 褋邪 薪械写芯褋褌褗锌薪懈 蟹邪 褋褗蟹薪邪薪懈械褌芯 薪懈. 袠谐褗谢屑邪薪 懈蟹褋谢械写胁邪 写褗谢斜懈薪懈褌械 薪邪 锌芯写褋褗蟹薪邪薪懈械褌芯, 蟹邪 写邪 褏胁褗褉谢懈 褋胁械褌谢懈薪邪 胁褗褉褏褍 薪械谐芯胁懈褌械 褍写懈胁懈褌械谢薪懈 褌邪泄薪懈.

鈥� 袣邪泻 械 胁褗蟹屑芯卸薪芯 写邪 褋械 褉邪蟹谐薪械胁懈褌械 薪邪 褋械斜械 褋懈 鈥� 泻芯泄 薪邪 泻芯谐芯 胁褋褗褖薪芯褋褌 褋械 褟写芯褋胁邪?
鈥� 袟邪褖芯 褋泻邪谢懈褌械 褋褟泻邪褕 褋械 写胁懈卸邪褌 薪邪谐芯褉械, 褋谢械写 泻邪褌芯 褋褌械 褋械 胁蟹懈褉邪谢懈 胁褗胁 胁芯写芯锌邪写?
鈥� 袟邪褖芯 褋褗写懈褟褌邪 芯褌 袙褗褉褏芯胁薪懈褟 褋褗写 校懈谢褟屑 袛褗谐谢邪褋 褌胁褗褉写褟谢, 褔械 屑芯卸械 写邪 懈谐褉邪械 褉褗谐斜懈 懈 写邪 褏芯写懈 薪邪 懈蟹谢械褌, 泻芯谐邪褌芯 胁褋懈褔泻懈 胁懈卸写邪谢懈, 褔械 械 锌邪褉邪谢懈蟹懈褉邪薪 褋谢械写 懈薪褋褍谢褌?
鈥� 袟邪褖芯 孝芯屑邪褋 袝写懈褋褗薪 褍屑褗褉褌胁懈谢 褋 械谢械泻褌褉懈褔械褋泻懈 褌芯泻 褋谢芯薪邪 孝芯锌褋懈 锌褉械蟹 1916 谐.?
鈥� 袟邪褖芯 邪屑械褉懈泻邪薪褑懈褌械 芯斜懈褔邪褌 写邪 褋褗褏褉邪薪褟胁邪褌 锌邪褉懈褌械 褋懈 胁 泻芯谢械写薪懈 胁谢芯谐芯胁械, 泻芯懈褌芯 薪械 懈屑 薪芯褋褟褌 谢懈褏胁邪?
鈥� 袗泻芯 锌懈褟薪懈褟褌 袦械谢 袚懈斜褋褗薪 屑褉邪蟹懈 械胁褉械懈褌械, 邪 褌褉械蟹胁懈褟褌 袦械谢 袚懈斜褋褗薪 懈褋泻褉械薪芯 褋械 褉邪蟹泻邪泄胁邪, 褌芯 褋褗褖械褋褌胁褍胁邪 谢懈 懈褋褌懈薪褋泻懈 袦械谢 袚懈斜褋褗薪?
鈥� 袣邪泻胁芯 芯斜褖芯 懈屑邪褌 袨写懈褋械泄 懈 泻褉懈蟹邪褌邪 褋 胁懈褋芯泻芯褉懈褋泻芯胁懈褌械 懈锌芯褌械褔薪懈 蟹邪械屑懈 胁 小袗些?
鈥� 袟邪褖芯 褋褌褉懈锌褌懈泄蟹褜芯褉泻懈褌械 锌械褔械谢褟褌 锌芯胁械褔械 锌邪褉懈 胁 芯锌褉械写械谢械薪懈 锌械褉懈芯写懈 芯褌 屑械褋械褑邪?
鈥� 袟邪褖芯 褏芯褉邪, 褔懈懈褌芯 懈屑械薪邪 蟹邪锌芯褔胁邪褌 褋 鈥炐斺€�, 械 锌芯-胁械褉芯褟褌薪芯 写邪 褋械 芯卸械薪褟褌 蟹邪 写褉褍谐懈 褏芯褉邪 褋 褌邪泻懈胁邪 懈屑械薪邪?
鈥� 袟邪褖芯 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 褋械 懈蟹泻褍褕邪胁邪屑械 写邪 褋锌芯写械谢懈屑 褌邪泄薪邪?
鈥� 袠屑邪 谢懈 褋褗锌褉褍蟹懈, 泻芯懈褌芯 械 锌芯-胁械褉芯褟褌薪芯 写邪 懈蟹薪械胁械褉褟褌?
鈥� 袟邪褖芯 锌邪褑懈械薪褌懈, 泻芯懈褌芯 锌褉懈械屑邪褌 屑械写懈泻邪屑械薪褌懈 蟹邪 谢械泻褍胁邪薪械 薪邪 斜芯谢械褋褌褌邪 薪邪 袩邪褉泻懈薪褋芯薪, 褋械 锌褉懈褋褌褉邪褋褌褟胁邪褌 泻褗屑 褏邪蟹邪褉褌邪?
鈥� 袟邪褖芯 效邪褉谢蟹 校懈褌屑邪薪, 斜邪薪泻芯胁 褋谢褍卸懈褌械谢 褋 胁懈褋芯泻 泻芯械褎懈褑懈械薪褌 薪邪 懈薪褌械谢懈谐械薪褌薪芯褋褌 懈 斜懈胁褕 斜谢械褋褌褟褖 斜芯泄褋泻邪褍褌, 胁薪械蟹邪锌薪芯 褉械褕邪胁邪 写邪 蟹邪褋褌褉械谢褟 48 写褍褕懈 胁 袨褋褌懈薪?

袣邪泻胁芯 芯斜褖芯 懈屑邪褌 褌械蟹懈 胁褗锌褉芯褋懈 褋褗褋 蟹邪写泻褍谢懈褋薪懈褌械 写械泄薪芯褋褌懈 薪邪 屑芯蟹褗泻邪?
袣邪泻褌芯 褖械 褉邪蟹斜械褉械屑 芯褌 褌邪蟹懈 泻薪懈谐邪 鈥� 胁褋懈褔泻芯.

296 pages, Paperback

First published May 31, 2011

3,540 people are currently reading
72.1k people want to read

About the author

David Eagleman

77books3,382followers
David Eagleman is an internationally bestselling author, a TED speaker, and a Guggenheim Fellow. He teaches neuroscience at Stanford University and is CEO of a neurotech startup, Neosensory. At night he writes. His books have been translated into 33 languages.

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
12,925 (38%)
4 stars
13,042 (38%)
3 stars
6,030 (17%)
2 stars
1,333 (3%)
1 star
455 (1%)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,331 reviews
387 reviews5 followers
August 16, 2011
Let me start with the easy stuff. On a literary note, this book is entertaining. However, it reads more like a series of interesting essays on neuroscience rather than a book.

Let me move on to the more interesting stuff. This book is deceptive. Eagleman uses a "slight of hand" writing style. Just as he describes how magic tricks deceive the brain, Eagleman uses this entertaining little book to advocate for a social and justice system that disregards civil rights.

How does he do this? He strings together an a serious of interesting tidbits about how the brain is controlled by chemistry and its hardwiring. For example, he outlines research on split brain patients and the difference between the right and left sides. He explains how we become "wired" for routine actions, such as driving to work, and can put forward little effort on accomplishing such things.

When he has you hooked, he launches into a treatise about how the criminal justice system should be used to correct our brains for he assumes that criminal activity is the result of a brain not functioning correctly. He admits that frontal lobotomies were a clumsy early attempt to do this, but he feels science is much more advanced now and continues to advance every day. For those who do not have "correctable" problems, he actually uses the work "warehouse" for their fate.

The bottom line is that he believes in "treatment" for those who commit crimes. On the surface, this sounds enlightened. But when you take a step back from this book, this idea is disturbing. Our criminal justice system, in fact our whole legal framework, is based on the underlying assumption that individuals have the right to control their own bodies. Even when they have forfeited the right to be physically free and are imprisoned, our government does not have the right to force medical treatment and that includes psychological treatment.

Eagleton is advocating for "treating" criminals. This should send a chill up his readers' spines. Our sordid history of "treating" criminals includes institutionalizing gays and lesbians and "treating" them for their "disorder", medical experiments with African American prisoners, and institutionalizing people with developmental disabilities for the minor offenses.

This is a dangerous road. But what is particularly disturbing about this book is Eagleton's deceptive approach. He does not acknowledge or give weight to any of the counterarguments to this approach, which you think should be standard for his "scientific approach". In fact, he positions himself as being "enlightened" because he does not advocate for the "lock up and throw away the key" approach. I can only think back to another book that I read this year - The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and how we must carefully balance the rights of individuals with scientific principles.
Profile Image for Amir Tesla.
162 reviews760 followers
February 19, 2018
馗丕賴乇丕 乇賵丨蹖 丿乇 讴丕乇 賳蹖爻鬲!!!
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲 賲孬賱 亘賯蹖賴 讴鬲丕亘賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 鬲賵蹖 夭賲蹖賳賴 賳賵乇賵爻丕蹖賳爻 (毓氐亘 卮賳丕爻蹖 賲睾夭) 禺賵賳丿賲 亘爻蹖丕乇 丕夭 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖蹖 乇賵 讴賴 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲匕賴亘 賵 丿蹖賳 亘賴 賲丕 诏賮鬲賳 乇賵 亘丕 丕氐賵賱 賵 毓賱賲 賵 賲孬丕賱 賴丕蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 夭蹖乇 爻賵丕賱 賲蹖 亘乇賴
蹖丕丿賲賴 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 丿蹖賳蹖賲賵賳 蹖賴 爻乇蹖 丿賱丕蹖賱 亘乇丕蹖 丕孬亘丕鬲 乇賵丨 賲蹖丕賵乇丿賳 亘賴 胤賵乇 賲孬丕賱 乇賵蹖丕賴丕蹖 氐丕丿賯賴 蹖丕 禺賵丕亘 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賲蹖 亘蹖賳蹖賲 賵 丨讴丕蹖鬲 丕夭 丌蹖賳丿賴 賲蹖 讴賳賳
蹖丕 丕乇诏丕賳 賴丕蹖 亘丿賳 賲孬賱 賯賱亘 賵 賵 賲毓丿賴 賵 乇诏賴丕 讴賴 趩賴 胤賵乇 亘丿賵賳 讴賳鬲乇賱 賲丕 讴丕乇 賲蹖 讴賳賳
蹖丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕诏乇 毓囟賵蹖 丕夭 亘丿賳 賯胤毓 亘卮賴 禺氐賵氐蹖丕鬲 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 卮禺氐 鬲睾蹖蹖乇蹖 賳禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿
賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 蹖丕 禺賵卮 亘禺鬲丕賳賴 亘乇丕蹖 鬲賲丕賲蹖 丕蹖賳 賴丕 丕賱丕賳 丿賱丕蹖賱 毓賱賲蹖 丕孬亘丕鬲 卮丿賴 丕蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賴 讴賴 賴蹖趩 丕乇鬲亘丕胤蹖 賴賲 亘賴 乇賵丨 賳丿丕乇賴.
蹖讴 爻乇蹖 丌爻蹖亘 賴丕 亘賴 亘禺卮 賴丕蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 丕夭 賲睾夭 賵丕乇丿 卮丿賴 讴賴 丕孬乇丕鬲 夭蹖乇 乇賵 丿乇 丕賮乇丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 . 丿乇 賲賵乇丿卮賵賳 鬲毓賲賯 讴賳蹖丿:
1. 賮乇丿蹖 讴賴 丕夭 蹖讴 卮禺氐蹖鬲 丕賴賱 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 賵 賵賮丕丿丕乇 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 蹖讴 賴乇夭賴 噩賳爻蹖 賵 毓賱丕賯賴 賲賳丿 亘賴 讴賵丿讴丕賳 賲蹖 卮賴 讴賴 丕賱亘鬲賴 亘毓丿 丕夭 噩乇丕丨蹖 讴賴 乇賵 賲睾夭卮 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖 卮賴 亘賴 丨丕賱鬲 賳乇賲丕賱 亘乇 賲蹖诏乇丿賴
2. 蹖讴 卮禺氐 丌讴丕丿賲蹖讴 賲毓賯賵賱貙 亘毓丿 丕夭 蹖讴 丿賵乇賴 趩賳丿賲丕賴賴 讴賴 鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲蹖 丿乇 禺賵丿卮 丕丨爻丕爻 賲蹖 讴賳賴貙 亘賴 蹖讴 丿賮毓賴 丕爻賱丨賴 亘乇 賲蹖 丿丕乇賴 賵 丿乇 丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 趩賳丿蹖賳 賳賮乇 乇賵 賲蹖 讴卮賴 (丿乇 禺丕胤乇丕鬲卮 賲蹖 賳賵蹖爻賴 亘毓丿 丕夭 賲乇诏賲 賲睾夭賲 賵 亘乇乇爻蹖 讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 丿乇 亘乇乇爻蹖 賴丕 賲卮禺氐 賲蹖 卮賴 蹖讴 睾丿賴 丿乇 賲睾夭卮 乇卮丿 讴乇丿賴 讴賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲 丿賮鬲乇趩賴 禺丕胤乇丕鬲卮 賲亘賳蹖 亘乇 鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲蹖 讴賴 丨爻 賲蹖 讴乇丿賴 乇賵 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲蹖 丿賴)
3. 賲乇丿 賲鬲丕賴賱 賵 賳乇賲丕賱蹖 讴賴 亘毓丿 丕夭 賲氐乇賮 夭蹖丕丿 賴乇賲賵賳 鬲爻鬲爻鬲乇賵賳 丿乇 蹖讴 卮亘 夭賳 賵 亘趩賴 賵 禺賵丿卮 乇賵 亘賴 賯鬲賱 賲蹖 乇爻賵賳賴
4. 賲丿蹖乇 倬乇賵跇賴 蹖 亘丕 丿蹖爻蹖倬賱蹖賳 賵 亘丕 爻丕亘賯賴 丕蹖 讴賴 亘毓丿 丕夭 爻賵乇丕禺 卮丿賳 噩賲噩賲賴 賵 丌爻蹖亘 丿蹖丿賳 倬乇蹖 賮乇丕賳鬲丕賱 讴賵乇鬲讴爻 賲睾夭卮 賵 爻倬乇蹖 讴乇丿賳 丿賵乇賴 亘賴亘賵丿蹖卮 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 蹖讴 丌丿賲 毓蹖丕卮 賲蹖 卮賴 讴賴 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕蹖 亘賴 卮丿賳 倬乇禺丕卮 诏乇丕賳賴 賵 毓氐亘蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿 賳卮賵賳 賲蹖 丿賴 賵 讴賳鬲乇賱蹖 乇賵蹖 賴蹖趩 丕丨爻丕爻蹖卮 賳丿丕乇賴
賳鬲蹖噩賴 卮禺氐蹖 賲賳 丕蹖賳 賴爻鬲 讴賴 卮丕蹖丿 乇賵丨 丕賵賳賯丿乇賴丕 賴賲 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 讴賳賳丿賴 禺賱賯 賵 禺賵 賵 丕丨爻丕爻丕鬲 賲丕 賳蹖爻鬲!!!
----
丿乇 亘禺卮 賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏賴 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖 禺賵賳蹖丿 讴賴 賲丕 丿賳蹖丕 乇賵 丕賵賳胤賵乇蹖 讴賴 賴爻鬲 賳賲蹖 亘蹖賳蹖賲. 亘賱讴賴 賲睾夭賲賵賳 鬲氐丕賵蹖乇 乇賵 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 丕賳鬲馗丕乇丕鬲蹖 讴賴 丿丕乇賴 賲蹖 爻丕夭賴. 丿賱蹖賱蹖 讴賴 蹖讴 爻乇蹖 鬲氐丕賵蹖乇 匕賴賳 賲丕 乇賵 賮乇蹖亘 賲蹖 丿賳 賴賲蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 賴爻鬲.
----
亘禺卮 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 爻乇丕睾 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 賲蹖 乇賴 讴賴 丕睾賱亘 鬲氐賲蹖賲丕鬲蹖 讴賴 賲蹖 诏蹖乇蹖賲 賵 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賲蹖 讴賳蹖賲貙 鬲氐賲蹖賲 诏蹖乇蹖 丿乇 丕氐賱 鬲賵爻胤 賱丕蹖賴 賴丕蹖 倬丕蹖蹖賳蹖 賲睾夭 丕賳噩丕賲 卮丿賴 讴賴 賴蹖趩 讴賳鬲乇賱蹖 乇賵卮賵賳 賳丿丕乇蹖賲.
胤亘賯 亘乇乇爻蹖 賴丕蹖 丕賮 丕賲 丕乇 丕蹖貙 賯亘賱 丕夭 丕蹖賳讴賴 蹖讴 鬲氐賲蹖賲 亘賴 囟賲蹖乇 禺賵丿 丌诏丕賴賲賵賳 賵丕乇丿 亘卮賴 賵 丕夭 丕賵賳 亘丕 禺亘乇 亘卮蹖賲貙 丕賵賳 鬲氐賲蹖賲 蹖讴 孬丕賳蹖賴 賯亘賱 鬲賵爻胤 賱丕蹖賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳 鬲乇 賲睾夭 爻丕禺鬲賴 賵 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴.
鬲賲孬蹖賱 噩丕賱亘 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖賳 賴爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖 诏賴 賵賯鬲蹖 賲丕 賮讴乇 賲蹖 讴賳蹖賲 丕蹖丿賴 賴丕 賵 鬲氐賲蹖賲丕鬲賲賵賳 丨丕氐賱 鬲賮讴乇 禺賵丿賲賵賳 賴爻鬲 賲孬賱 丕蹖賳 賲蹖 賲賵賳賴 讴賴 鬲蹖鬲乇 乇賵夭賳丕賲賴 丕蹖 乇賵 亘禺賵賳蹖賲 賵 賮讴乇 讴賳蹖賲 倬丿蹖丿 丌賵賳丿賴 讴賱 禺亘乇賴丕蹖 鬲丨鬲 丕賵賳 鬲蹖鬲乇 賲丕 賴爻鬲蹖賲
毓噩蹖亘 丕賲丕 賵丕賯毓蹖 ...
----
蹖讴 賯爻賲鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇 噩丕賱亘 賵 鬲丕賲賱 亘乇丕賳诏蹖夭 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丕孬乇丕鬲 亘蹖賲丕乇蹖 爻乇毓 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖 卮賴 賮乇丿 氐丿丕賴丕蹖蹖 丿乇 匕賴賳卮 亘卮賳賵賴 賵 丕賮乇丕丿 鬲丨鬲 鬲丕孬蹖乇 丕蹖賳 亘蹖賲丕乇蹖 鬲賲丕蹖賱丕鬲 卮丿蹖丿 賲匕賴亘蹖 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖 讴賳賳 賵 賲丿毓蹖 賲蹖 卮賳 讴賴 亘丕 禺丿丕 蹖丕 丕賮乇丕丿 賯丿蹖爻 丿乇 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 賴爻鬲賳丿. 賳賴 丕蹖賳讴賴 賯氐丿 賮乇蹖亘 讴丕乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿貙 亘賱讴賴 鬲丨鬲 鬲丕孬蹖乇 鬲賵賴賲丕鬲蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 賲睾夭卮賵賳 亘乇丕卮賵賳 賲蹖 爻丕夭賴
賲孬丕賱 賴丕蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 丿爻鬲 丕卮禺丕氐 賲蹖 夭賳賴 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 丿禺鬲乇 卮賵賳夭丿賴 爻丕賱賴 丕蹖 亘賴 丕爻賲 跇賵丕賳 丌乇讴 讴賴 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丿丕卮鬲 賵 爻乇亘丕夭丕賳 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖 乇賵 賴賲 賲鬲賯丕毓丿 讴乇丿 讴賴 亘丕 賯丿蹖爻丕賳蹖 趩賵賳 賲丕蹖讴賱貙 讴丕鬲乇蹖賳貙 賲丕乇诏丕乇鬲貙 诏丕亘乇蹖賱 賵 睾蹖乇賴 丿乇 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 賵 賲賵噩 蹖讴 爻乇蹖 噩賳诏 賴丕蹖 氐丿爻丕賱賴 乇賵 亘賴 乇丕賴 丕賳丿丕禺鬲
丕蹖賳 亘蹖賲丕乇蹖 丕爻賲卮 氐乇毓 賱賵亘 鬲賲倬賵乇丕賱 賴爻鬲
賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丕蹖賳 賲爻卅賱賴 乇賵 亘賴 倬蹖丕賲乇丕賳 賴賲 亘爻胤 賲蹖 丿賴 賵 鬲賱賵蹖丨丕 賲蹖诏賴 丕丿毓丕蹖 賵丨蹖 賲賲讴賳 賴爻鬲 鬲丨鬲 鬲丕孬蹖乇 賴賲蹖賳 賲囟賵毓 亘丕卮賴
-----
賲賳 亘賴 賴蹖趩 毓賳賵丕賳 賯氐丿 賳鬲蹖噩賴 诏蹖乇蹖貙 乇丿 蹖丕 鬲丕蹖蹖丿 賲匕賴亘 賵 ... 賳丿丕乇賲.
亘賴 賳馗乇賲 丿賵爻鬲丕賳蹖 讴賴 亘賴 賮賱爻賮賴 賵 丨賯蹖賯鬲 毓賱丕賯賴 賲賳丿 賴爻鬲賳 丨鬲賲丕 亘丕蹖丿 讴鬲丕亘 賴丕蹖 毓氐亘 卮賳丕爻蹖 賲睾夭 乇賵 賴賲 賲胤丕賱毓賴 讴賳賳丿
丿乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲噩乇亘賴 卮禺氐蹖 禺賵丿賲貙 乇蹖卮賴 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 賲爻丕卅賱蹖 讴賴 賲匕賴亘 亘賴 賲丕 賵乇丕亍 乇亘胤 賲蹖 丿賴 乇賵 賲賳 丿乇 爻蹖爻鬲賲 讴丕乇 讴乇丿賳 亘丿賳 賵 賲睾夭 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿賲.
賯乇丌賳 蹖賴 丌蹖賴 丿丕乇賴:
賳丨賳 丕賯乇亘 毓賱蹖讴 賲賳 丨亘賱 丕賱賵乇蹖丿
賴賲丕賳丕 賲丕 丕夭 乇诏 诏乇丿賳 亘賴 卮賲丕 賳夭丿蹖讴 鬲乇蹖賲
卮丕蹖丿 鬲賮爻蹖乇賴丕蹖 賲丕 丕夭 賲匕賴亘 趩賳丿丕賳 丿乇爻鬲 賳亘賵丿賳 ...
Profile Image for PattyMacDotComma.
1,724 reviews1,018 followers
June 17, 2019
5鈽� from both sides of my brain
The only book I鈥檇 read was my favourite book, , a collection of extremely short extremely thought-provoking stories. So I really wasn鈥檛 sure what to expect from a book from his 鈥渄ay job鈥� as a neuroscientist. I needn鈥檛 have worried.

While this is a non-fiction book about the biology of the brain, it is just as intriguingly thought-provoking as Sum. There are footnotes and an extensive reference list and index, for the academically inclined, but the writing style is accessible and, dare I say, entertainingly philosophical.

The title of the first chapter, from Pink Floyd, indicates that. 鈥淭here鈥檚 someone in my head, and it鈥檚 not me.鈥� Reading this will give you an idea of whether that鈥檚 true or not, and if so, who that someone might be. There are numerous case histories and anecdotes, many of which seem like they鈥檙e straight out of an old Ripley鈥檚 Believe it or Not. The book was written in 2011, so some of the stories which sounded familiar to me probably are, because they may have been quoted from this book.

The best I can do here is share some things I found interesting, for example, in today鈥檚 24/7 media releases of political talking points, you might like to know that there is an "'颈濒濒耻蝉颈辞苍-辞蹿-迟谤耻迟丑鈥� effect: you are more likely to believe that a statement is true if you have heard it before鈥攚hether or not it is actually true.鈥� Scary eh?

I won鈥檛 bother you with the tests that have been done to prove these things are so, just take my word for it 鈥� they鈥檙e covered and referenced, if you鈥檙e looking for more information. Things like the genes that are shared by about 50% of the general population are carried by an overwhelming number of perpetrators of violent crimes and by over 98% of people on death row. A predisposition to violence, you might say. So whose fault are the crimes?

Then there鈥檚 a take on "seeing is believing". We each 鈥渟ee鈥� things the way we do, not necessarily the way our family and friends do. There鈥檚 a condition called synesthesia, meaning 鈥榡oined sensation鈥�, where sensing something with one sense will trigger another. Sound may be not only heard, but also experienced as colour. Numbers may be associated with colours.

Synesthetes may have 3-dimensional views of calendars and time and be able to point to spots on space where those times and dates lie. I have mental time-lines and calendar lines in my mind鈥檚 eye, but they certainly aren鈥檛 floating in space that I know of. Eagleman says 鈥淚nstead of reality being passively recorded by the brain, it is actively constructed by it.鈥�

There鈥檚 a fascinating section on The Democracy of the Mind. Rather than have an assembly line mind where each little component does its assigned role and contributes to a whole picture or state, we work with a competition model, where different parts of us want different things and may argue with each other about it. You know the feeling 鈥� the chocolate bar is beckoning, but then you鈥檝e promised yourself you鈥檙e going to be more health-conscious.

This democratic system of making decisions by weighing up pros and cons is why good governing systems work well when you have people with different opinions and different strengths contributing to the process. Eagleman gives good examples of how this works in world politics.

He also identifies the 鈥渢wo-party system鈥� for the brain: the rational and the emotional. He admits these are just handy words, not specific terms for discussing how we deal with this split. He always gives completely understandable, real-world examples to illustrate what he means.

In this case, he says, 鈥渁s a rough guide, rational cognition involves external events while emotion involves your internal state. You can do a math problem without consulting your internal state, but you can鈥檛 order a dessert off a menu or prioritize what you feel like doing next.鈥�

And did you know you could live perfectly normally with only half your brain? Better if the half is removed before you are 8 years old, but even after that, what we can do is remarkable. This is the right or left half, not just any old half, by the way. We seem to have built-in redundancy, which makes me wonder what we could do if we really used the whole thing!

He cautions against reductionism, which proposes that you can understand things better if you keep breaking them down into smaller and smaller components. Sometimes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, e.g., an airplane: no single part has flight properties, but put them all together, and you鈥檙e off!

Observation won鈥檛 always do it either. He gives an example of what he calls Radio Theory. A bushman who鈥檚 never seen a transistor radio, picks one up, fiddles with it, hears voices, takes it apart and fiddles with wires, and discovers when he pulls one wire out, it stops. When he sticks it back, it works, sometimes louder, sometimes softer, depending on the dials. He may think the voices depend on the wires, and will seem brilliant, until someone asks how the voices got there.

Eagleman mentions that Arthur C. Clarke said you couldn鈥檛 really tell advanced technology from magic. He was right. It is all magic.

The book ends saying: "What a perplexing masterpiece the brain is and how lucky we are to be in a generation that has the technology and the will to turn our attention to it. It is the most wondrous thing we have discovered in the universe, and it is us.鈥�

Absolutely fascinating. This is just the smallest taste.
Profile Image for Petra In Aotearoa.
2,456 reviews35.4k followers
1-tbr-owned-but-not-yet-read
February 19, 2021
What intrigued me about this book were some of the questions it is going to answer: why is your foot on the brake faster than your brain at seeing danger? Why, no matter where your attention might be, you can always hear your name mentioned in a conversation even if you weren't involved in it? How can you get angry with yourself? Who is upset with whom? I'd never even thought of these things, let alone that that the answers were neurological.
Profile Image for Caroline.
549 reviews704 followers
July 20, 2018
This is a must read! What a fascinating book. Not only full of interesting ideas, but also hugely readable.

It's a mouthful, but relevant, to mention that the author is director of Baylor College of Medicine's Initiative on Neuroscience and Law, at Stanford University.

As the book progresses, it can be seen as an argument for assessing and handling criminals differently. Eagleman thinks we should pay much more attention to the physical and psychological factors which may influence individual criminals, rather than regarding the person in the dock as coming from a level playing field, where all people are the same. To back his argument, he spends much of the book convincing us that we are propelled through life by subconscious urges, fed by a soup of genes and hormones. I found his argument convincing. Most of all this book is wonderfully exciting. It's a darn good read.

I end with my usual bunch of notes - nearly all just taken from the book. Enter here at your peril. I have droned on even more than usual.

______

The Brain with David Eagleman. What is Reality? BBC (You Tube) 1 hour. Actually this comes in 4 parts, which I am currently watching. Highly recommended!

Profile Image for Kristin.
392 reviews20 followers
June 1, 2011
*I am required to disclose that I received this book as a freebie from the 欧宝娱乐 first reads giveaway program, but don't worry, this doesn't obligate me to say only good things.

Though I give the book four stars and have already recommended it to more people than any book I've ever read, I would strongly disagree with the first reviewer that the book is an "engaging romp" or "fun".
The book is, and should be, profoundly unsettling, though for reasons which make it all the more important to confront. Eagleman creates a compelling account for rethinking the answer to the question "who am I?", one that will have you profoundly questioning former assumptions and intuitions.
Incognito tells of homicidal sleepwalkers, people who hear color and taste sounds, and a condition in which a blind person is perfectly convinced that they can see. It poses the questions: To what extent does it make sense to refer to my conscious self as "my true self"? To what extent does the concept of free will make sense on a neurological level? How much of my reality is a perception of my physical surrounding, and how much might be an interpretation offered by my brain?
Eagleman manages to address these questions in a very readable account, and you can't help but share in his contagious enthusiasm for how cool neuroscience is. If you like being wowed and challenged, read this book. Just be forewarned that it might force you to seriously reconsider the way your look at your world and your self.
Profile Image for Ahmed.
917 reviews7,961 followers
April 19, 2020
丕賱賲鬲禺賮賷( 丕賱丨賷賵丕鬲 丕賱爻乇賷丞 賱賱丿賲丕睾).....丿賷賮賷丿 廿賷噩賱賲丕賳
鬲/丨賲夭丞 亘賳 賯亘賱丕賳 丕賱賲夭賷賳賷

賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 賲賱賴賲貙 賵爻賱爻 噩丿丕 賱丿乇噩丞 丕賳賴 賰丕賳 兀賯乇亘 賱乇賵丕賷丞 亘胤賱賴丕 丕賱丿賲丕睾 丕賱亘卮乇賷 亘賰賱 鬲賮丕氐賷賱賴 賵禺賱丕賷丕賴 賵毓賲賱賷丕鬲賴 睾丕賷丞 丕賱鬲毓賯賷丿.

賮賷 賳賵毓 賲毓賷賳 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 賱賲丕 亘禺賱氐賴丕 亘賷亘賯賶 賳賮爻賷 丕賰賱賲 丕賱賳丕爻 賰賱賴丕 毓賳賴貙 賵丕賵夭毓 賲賳賴 賴丿丕賷丕 毓賱賷賴賲貙 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丿丕 賲賳 丕賱賳賵毓賷丞 丿賷貙 丕賱賳賵毓賷丞 丕賱賲丿賴卮丞貙 丕賱賱賷 乇睾賲 鬲毓賯賷丿 賲賵囟賵毓賴 賵賰賲 丕賱丕卮鬲亘丕賰丕鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇丞 賲毓賴貙 賲賰鬲賵亘 亘胤乇賷賯丞亘爻賷胤丞 噩丿丕.

丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷賱 毓賱賶 丕賰孬乇 賲賳 噩賴丞貙 賱鬲亘爻賷胤賴 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞貙 賵賲賵爻賵毓賷鬲賴 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 鬲丕賳賷丞貙 賵丿賲噩賴 亘賷賳 賲賵丕囟賷毓 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 亘鬲賳丕爻賯.
Profile Image for Alisa Kester.
Author听8 books67 followers
July 1, 2011
Another hard one to review. If I were going by the first few chapters, it would have been not only five stars, but one of my personal 'Best Books of 2011'. However, in the last two thirds the content took a nose dive into absurdity. The author first attempts to prove that we have no free will, because much of our behavior is ruled by the subconscious. Um...last time I checked, my subconscious was still *me*. Then, the author puts forward a case that because criminals do bad things, they are clearly all brain-damaged, and thus don't have the same level of 'blameworthiness' for their crimes as 'normal' people do. He compares them to people who have disorders like Tourette's. He spends chapters building this case, and ignoring this simple fact: Tourette's sufferers cannot control their actions, but criminals can...if they want to. When was the last time you saw a burglar steal in front of a policeman? If the burglar truly was brain-damaged, and 'had no control' over what he did, then the simple presence of a cop wouldn't stop him.
Profile Image for Caroline .
477 reviews680 followers
October 15, 2020
Incognito is incredibly fascinating. I never tire of reading about the brain, an organ so complex that I doubt scientists will ever fully understand it. The book is packed with some the most astounding facts I've ever read, most of which I'd never heard of before or even considered. My favorite brain fact is in this book, still, years after I read Incognito and after reading other brain books.

The topic has the potential to be textbook-like, but readers shouldn't be scared of Incognito. Eagleman is a brilliant man, but he wanted his book to be for the lay reader and is style is very engaging and accessible without being condescending. I also recommend his short and quirky , a fictional brain-based book.
Profile Image for Trevor.
1,470 reviews24k followers
April 2, 2012
This was a much better book than I thought it was going to be and a much better book than you might think from even flicking through it. You know, there are cartoons and while this isn't a guaranteed sign that things will be bad, it is the next best thing to a guarantee.

And I listened to this as a talking book - and the author reads the book. This, too, is generally a mistake. But he did a reasonable job even here, although, to be honest, I think he would have been better served with a professional.

A lot of this book confirms my prejudices - so, of course, I approve of it immediately. Some of those prejudices include the idea that our personalities (our souls) are in fact elaborately constructed by the physical reality of our brains. He ends this book by somewhat calling this into question, but I like to see that mostly as him covering his bum, just in case.

The bits of this that were particularly interesting, though, were not so much the speculations on consciousness and quantum theory - despite what he has to say on this about keeping an open mind, I still wonder about the point of raising this at all - but rather what he has to say about the nature of consciousness as has been illuminated by science and the implications of those illuminations. And for the first nine-tenths of this book he gives one surprising example after another.

Until I got distracted recently I was reading a book called - The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. This is a mind-blowing work. The review will come eventually. Anyway, this book also looks at visual perception and how our brains constructs what we see - or, more accurately, what we think we see. We imagine we get a beautifully clear, panoramic view of the world and all for the remarkably low cost of opening our eyes. However, the reality is nothing at all like the appearance. In fact, rather than what we think we get when we open our eyes - about 250 degrees or fairly clear photograph of the world - in fact we get a rather tiny clear spot of attention and a brain that deludes us by filling in the rest in broad strokes. And he proves this in the most remarkable ways. The first is by way of a test of peripheral vision where he gets someone to look directly at his nose while he holds some coloured pencils in his hand at arms length. They are asked to say what colours and what order the pencils are in his hand. If we had the kind of vision we think we do this ought to be simplicity itself - but we don't have the kind of vision we think we do.

But the best example he gives is something I have known for years but didn't realise could be so easily shown. We all know that light enters the eye through a lens which inverts the image and displays it upside down on the retina at the back of the eye. We like to think of this inverted image as a perfect little picture of the world - not unlike a video camera image. And we think the amazing thing that happens with this image is that our brain flips it around so it is right way up. The problem is this is by far the least impressive trick our brain does. Think about your retina as a cinema screen. The problem is that you need to get the image formed on this screen to your brain and the cable guy who put in the cable to transmit this data to your brain stuck the cable right in the middle of the screen. That means there are two great big holes right in the middle of your vision. Now, you may have noticed that you have never noticed these holes. That's because your brain fills them in. But do you want to see the hole? Place your hands in front of you so that your index fingers are pointing to the sky and your thumbs are touching and hold your hands about thirty centimetres (a foot for those of you still on base twelve) from your eyes. Close your left eye and do not move your focus from your left finger. Move your fingers away from your body and while still focused on your right finger notice what happens to your left finger - what happens is that it disappears. It disappears because it moves into your blind spot - the hole in your visual field. But you don't see a dark spot - your brain just fills in more background scene - background scene you know isn't actually there, because your finger is there. Think about that for a moment. The vast majority of what you think you see is actually stuff that you brain made up. And as long as no problems are encountered the made up world is the one you are most contented in living in.

But wait, there's more. We are quite sure we have free will - but what is really interesting is some experiments reported here that seriously call this into question. One is where they get split brain patients and show them different words in their different eyes. Say, flower and tablecloth. They then tell the people to touch the object they had shown to them. People touch both a flower and a tablecloth - but only one side of their brain has the power of speech and so when they are asked why they touched the tablecloth the real answer should be, I've no idea. But this is never the answer given. Rather people make stuff up. They say things like, "I've been wanting to buy a tablecloth like this for years and just wanted to see if it felt as nice as it looks". Very, very often our 'motivation' for doing something is added only after we have seen ourselves doing it.

There is a really interesting discussion on the problem of guilt given our questionable volition, and the perfectly sensible suggestion that we should only punish people if we think it will change their behaviour in the future. I know those of you who like the idea of punishment for punishment's sake won't like this suggestion very much, but it does seem to make sense to me. But then, I've crazy leftwing views with these things and don't really get off on the idea of punishing people for things beyond their control.

There is a very long discussion on the incident where Mel Gibson told a Jewish cop that Jews were the cause of all wars in the world when he was pulled over for driving while being about twice the legal blood alcohol level. This is presented as some kind of proof that we are multiple people in the one body - and while I think this is true, as far as it goes, I don't think the example given is all that useful, mostly because I think the writer constantly misinterprets what actually happened in this case. Gibson later said he was not anti-semitic, and, I for one, think that is actually the case. What I think happened was that when Gibson was pulled over he knew he was buggered. This cop was going to cause him lots of pain - he was about to lose his license and be involved in a court case that would be embarrassing. The alcohol in his system told him - you need to kick this guy's arse. But how? He could have said, "I think you police aren't very nice people" - but it is just possible that the policeman may not have been terribly upset by this. A bit like Mel kicking the guy with a pair of fluffy slippers. However, there were a pair of steal tipped jackboots available. Do you for a second think that if the policeman was black Gibson would have started to rant about Jews ruling the world? Hardly. What Gibson did was unforgivable, but it was about something other than him 'displaying the racist within' - this was about grabbing whatever is available to hurt someone who is hurting you in the most painful way possible. Not pretty, but something quite different to what is discussed in this book.

All the same, this is a fascinating book and remarkably simply written, despite the quite complicated ideas presented. An interesting book to read after Freud's Interpretation of Dreams - and remarkably consistent with the central ideas of that book too.
Profile Image for Carolyn Lane.
12 reviews2 followers
June 8, 2012
Neuroscientists need to be pretty smart people. Even smarter is the neuroscientist who can produce writing which is attractive and appealing to our less-informed minds. David Eagleman can.

Incognito is a wide-ranging and entertaining look at the development of our thinking about thinking, and the current state of brain-science. He covers
鈥� how and why we have practically no conscious knowledge of what鈥檚 going on in the incredibly complex machinery of our brains, and why the 鈥渃hief executive鈥� (our consciousness) is only brought into play on occasion
鈥� how totally misleading the 鈥渆vidence鈥� of our senses and our common-sense can be
鈥� how our minds contain multitudes of 鈥渙urselves鈥� 鈥� so we can argue with ourselves, laugh at ourselves and make contracts with ourselves
鈥� and how vulnerable our brains are to small things that can change our functioning radically.
Which all means鈥� we鈥檙e not really driving the boat, even though we fool ourselves that we are. Our unconscious is at the wheel, driving from charts of 鈥渋nnumerable generations of evolutionary selection and a lifetime of experiences鈥� and only enlisting our conscious mind from time to time.

It鈥檚 pretty challenging stuff for those of us who have spent lifetimes working on polishing our decision-making skills and exploring our consciousness.

It鈥檚 even more challenging when his research-study-by-research-study compilation of the above premises brings us to the big questions of 鈥渨here then does our free will operate?鈥� 鈥淲hat then does being culpable or blameworthy, in a criminal sense, mean?鈥�
And, his central question in this book comes through from his role as director of Baylor College of Medicine鈥檚 Initiative on Neuroscience and Law 鈥� 鈥渉ow do we design a forward-looking , brain-compatible legal system?鈥�

He is not arguing that 鈥渢o understand all is to forgive all鈥�, but rather that while people who break social contracts need to be 鈥渨arehoused鈥� away from society, there is a difference between those who can then modify their own patterns and strengthen their self-control mechanisms through something he calls 鈥渢he prefrontal workout鈥�, and those who can鈥檛. Different treatment is required.

Having thrown that stone into the pool, he then moves back to perhaps more familiar territory about consciousness, self-knowledge, nature/nurture, reductionism/emergence, and finishes with another big idea 鈥� that our brain is only the hub of a broader socio-biological system.

But what has stuck with me is the question about how we need to redesign our ways of dealing with criminal behaviour. It was so cleverly structured into the book. I was reading along going 鈥榶es, yes, I get that鈥� as he tracked through what was partly familiar research and interpretation and explanation and sense-making 鈥� then wham. A really tough 鈥渟o what do we need to DO, now that we know what we know?鈥� question.

It鈥檚 changed my thinking 鈥� and that鈥檚 the best thing I can say about any book. Thank you David.

Incognito 鈥� The Secret Lives of the Brain
David Eagleman, The Text Publishing Company Melbourne, 2011

Profile Image for Koray.
288 reviews58 followers
March 12, 2021
Kitap tek kelimeyle "M脺-KEM-MEL!!!" Al谋nt谋lar谋 yaz谋yorum ki d枚n眉p d枚n眉p tekrar okuyay谋m:

SIRRI A脟I臑A VURMAK / 鈥�...S谋rr谋 a莽谋臒a vurmaman谋n ana nedeni, bunun olas谋 uzun d枚nemli sonu莽lar谋na ili艧kin duyulan endi艧edir. Bir dostunuz sizin hakk谋n谋zda k枚t眉 d眉艧眉nebilir, sevgiliniz k谋r谋labilir, toplumdan d谋艧lanabilirsiniz. 陌nsanlar谋n s谋rlar谋n谋 daha 莽ok yabanc谋lara a莽mas谋, ya艧anacak sonuca dair duyduklar谋 endi艧enin kan谋t谋d谋r. N枚ral 莽at谋艧ma, b枚ylece herhangi bir bedel 枚denmeksizin atlat谋lm谋艧 olur. U莽akta kar艧谋la艧t谋臒谋n谋z yabanc谋lar谋n durup dururken kendilerini size yak谋n hissedip evlilik sorunlar谋n谋 b眉t眉n ayr谋nt谋lar谋yla anlatmalar谋n谋n, g眉nah 莽谋karma kabinlerinin d眉nyan谋n en b眉y眉k dinlerinden birinde yerini h芒l芒 koruyor olmas谋n谋n nedeni de budur. Bu olgu, benzer 艧ekilde dua etmenin cazibesini de a莽谋klayabilir; 枚zellikle de tanr谋lar谋n son derece ki艧isel oldu臒u ve kullar谋n谋 sonsuz bir sevgiyle, p眉r dikkat dinledi臒i dinlerde. S谋rlar谋 yabanc谋lara if艧a erme, k枚kleri 莽ok eskilere uzanan bir ihtiya莽t谋r. Siz de mutlaka fark etmi艧sinizdir ki, bir s谋rr谋 a莽谋k etmenin nedeni, genellikle yaln谋zca a莽谋k etmi艧 olmakt谋r; yoksa, tavsiye istemek de臒il. Dinleyici, olur da s谋rla birlikte ortaya d枚k眉len soruna bariz bir 莽枚z眉m g枚r眉p bunu 枚nerme gafletinde bulunursa da, anlatan谋 枚fkelendirmekle kal谋r yaln谋zca. 脟眉nk眉, anlat谋c谋n谋n asl谋nda tek derdi s谋rr谋n谋 anlatmakt谋r. S谋rr谋 anlatmak, ba艧l谋 ba艧谋na 莽枚z眉m眉n ta kendisidir 莽o臒u zaman. Hen眉z yan谋tlanmam谋艧 bir soru ise, dinleyicinin neden ille de insan -ya da tanr谋 枚rne臒ini d眉艧眉necek olursak, insans谋- olmas谋 gerekti臒idir. Bir duvara, kertenkeleye ya da ke莽iye s谋rr谋n谋 anlatmak, ne de olsa 莽ok daha az tatmin edicidir鈥︹€�
AM陌GDALA HASARI / 鈥�..Charles Whitman, 1966 A臒ustosunun s谋cak ve nemli ilk g眉n眉nde, kendisini Austin鈥檇eki Teksas 脺niversitesi kulesinin en 眉st kat谋na g枚t眉recek olan asans枚re bindi. Yirmi be艧 ya艧谋ndaki gen莽, daha sonra bir bavul dolusu silah ve cephaneyi de pe艧inden s眉r眉kleyerek 眉莽 kat merdiven 莽谋kt谋 ve g枚zlem alan谋na ula艧t谋. Burada 枚nce silah谋n dip莽i臒iyle dan谋艧ma g枚revlisini 枚ld眉rd眉, ard谋ndan merdiven aral谋臒谋ndan 莽谋kmakta olan iki turist ailesine ate艧 a莽t谋, en sonunda da a艧a臒谋daki insanlara geli艧ig眉zel ate艧 etmeye ba艧lad谋. Whitman, bir gece 枚ncesinde daktilonun ba艧谋na ge莽mi艧 ve bir intihar notu yazm谋艧t谋: Kendimi 艧u g眉nlerde tam olarak anlayam谋yorum. Akl谋 ba艧谋nda ve zeki bir gen莽 olarak tan谋nmaktay谋m. Ama son zamanlarda (ne zaman ba艧lad谋臒谋m谋 hat谋rlayam谋yorum) bir莽ok s谋ra d谋艧谋 ve mant谋ks谋z d眉艧眉ncenin kurban谋 olmu艧 durumday谋m. Sald谋r谋n谋n haberi yay谋l谋rken Austin'deki b眉t眉n polis memurlar谋 da yerle艧keye y枚nlendirildi. Birka莽 saat sonra 眉莽 memur ve h谋zla g枚revlendirilen bir vatanda艧 merdivenleri 莽谋kmay谋 ve Whitman'i g枚zlem alan谋nda 枚ld眉rmeyi ba艧ard谋. Whitman hari莽 on 眉莽 ki艧i 枚ld眉r眉lm眉艧, otuz 眉莽 ki艧i de yaralanm谋艧t谋鈥�.Whitman'in cesedi morga g枚t眉r眉ld眉, kafatas谋 kemik testeresiyle a莽谋ld谋 ve beyin 莽谋kar谋ld谋. Otopsi incelemesini yapan doktor, beyinde bozuk para b眉y眉kl眉臒眉nde bir t眉m枚r buldu. Gliyoblastom ad谋 verilen bu t眉m枚r, talamus denilen yap谋n谋n alt k谋sm谋ndan 莽谋k谋p hipotalamusa uzan谋yor ve amigdala olarak bilinen 眉莽眉nc眉 bir yap谋y谋 s谋k谋艧t谋r谋yordu. Amigdala, 枚zellikle de korku ve sald谋rganl谋k merkezinde olmak 眉zere, duygu mekanizmas谋n谋n d眉zenlenmesinden sorumludur. 1800鈥檒erin sonlar谋na gelindi臒inde, ara艧t谋rmac谋lar amigdalan谋n hasar g枚rmesiyle duygusal ve toplumsal rahats谋zl谋klar ya艧and谋臒谋n谋 ke艧fetmi艧lerdi. 1930鈥檒u y谋llarda ise Heinrich Kl眉ver ve Paul Bucy adl谋 biyologlar, amigdalas谋 zarar g枚ren maymunlarda korkusuzluk, duygusal k枚relme ve a艧谋r谋 tepki gibi bir dizi belirti ortaya 莽谋kt谋臒谋n谋 g枚sterdiler. Amigdalas谋 hasarl谋 di艧i maymunlar谋n annelik davran谋艧lar谋 bile bozuluyor, bu maymunlar s谋kl谋kla yavrular谋n谋 ihmal ediyor ya da onlara fiziksel tacizde bulunuyorlard谋. Sa臒l谋kl谋 insanlarda ise amigdalan谋n etkinli臒i, 枚zellikle 眉rk眉t眉c眉 y眉zler g枚rd眉klerinde, korkulu anlar ya da toplumsal fobiler ya艧ad谋klar谋nda artar. Sonu莽ta Whitman鈥櫮眓 kendisiyle ilgili sezgileri -beynindeki bir 艧eylerin davran谋艧lar谋n谋 de臒i艧tirdi臒i- ger莽ekten de son derece isabetliydi. 鈥樏噊k sevdi臒im bu iki insan谋 da vah艧ice 枚ld眉rm眉艧 gibi g枚r眉nd眉臒眉m眉 tahmin ediyorum. Ama ben i艧i h谋zl谋 ve tam bi莽imde yapmaya 莽al谋艧t谋m yaln谋zca. ... E臒er ya艧am sigortas谋 poli莽em h芒l芒 ge莽erliyse l眉tfen bor莽lar谋m谋 枚deyin ... geri kalan谋n谋 da ismimi vermeden bir ak谋l sa臒l谋臒谋 kurulu艧una ba臒谋艧lay谋n.鈥� Bu t眉r trajediler, belki de ara艧t谋rmalar sonucunda 枚nlenebilir. Whitman鈥檇aki de臒i艧imi fark eden ba艧kalar谋 da vard谋. Yak谋n arkada艧谋 Elaine Fuess 鈥淭眉m眉yle normal g枚r眉nd眉臒眉nde bile, i莽indeki bir 艧eyleri denetlemeye 莽al谋艧t谋臒谋 izlenimini veriyordu鈥� diye anlatm谋艧t谋. O 鈥渂ir 艧eyler鈥� tahminen Whitman鈥櫮眓 i莽indeki 枚fkeli, sald谋rgan zombi programlar toplulu臒uydu. Daha sakin ve ak谋lc谋 olan taraflar, tepkisel, 艧iddete e臒ilimli taraflarla m眉cadeleyi s眉rd眉rse de t眉m枚rle gelen hasar dengeyi 枚yle bozmu艧tu ki, sava艧 art谋k adil olmaktan 莽谋km谋艧t谋鈥︹€�
鈥�...BEYN陌 DE臑陌艦T陌R, SAH陌B陌 DE DE臑陌艦S陌N: YOKTAN VAR OLAN PEDOF陌LLER, ARAK脟ILAR VE KUMARBAZLAR / Whitman vakas谋 m眉nferit de臒ildir. N枚robilimle hukukun aray眉z眉, beyin hasar谋n谋n da devrede oldu臒u ve say谋lar谋 giderek artan vakalarla doludur. Beyni incelememize yard谋mc谋 olan daha iyi teknolojiler geli艧tik莽e, daha fazla say谋da sorunun fark谋na varmaktay谋z. Burada Alex ad谋n谋 verece臒im k谋rk ya艧谋ndaki bir adam谋n hik芒yesini ele alal谋m. Alex鈥檌n e艧i Julia, onun cinsel tercihlerinde bir de臒i艧imin varl谋臒谋n谋 fark etmi艧ti. Onu tan谋d谋臒谋 yirmi y谋l boyunca ilk kez 莽ocuk pornografisine ilgi duymaya ba艧lam谋艧t谋. 脺stelik 枚yle b枚yle bir ilgi de de臒ildi bu. B眉t眉n zaman谋n谋 莽ocuk pornografisi sitelerine girip dergi toplayarak ge莽irmeye ba艧lam谋艧, bir masaj salonundaki gen莽 bir kad谋ndan ili艧ki talebinde bulunacak kadar da ileriye g枚t眉rm眉艧t眉 i艧leri. Bu, daha 枚nce kesinlikle yapmad谋臒谋 bir 艧eydi. Evlendi臒i adam谋 art谋k tan谋yamaz hale gelen Julia, ondaki bu davran谋艧 de臒i艧ikli臒i kar艧谋s谋nda korkmaya ba艧lam谋艧t谋. T眉m bunlarla e艧zamanl谋 olarak, artan ba艧 a臒r谋lar谋ndan 艧ik芒yet ediyordu Alex. Julia bunun 眉zerine onu bir aile hekimine g枚t眉rd眉, o da Alex鈥檌 bir n枚rolo臒a y枚nlendirdi. Uygulanan beyin taramas谋nda, beynin 鈥渙rbitofrontal korteks鈥� ad谋 verilen b枚lgesinde b眉y眉k bir t眉m枚r眉n varl谋臒谋 saptand谋. Beyin cerrahlar谋 t眉m枚r眉 al谋nd谋ktan sonra, Alex鈥檌n cinsel davran谋艧lar谋 da normale d枚nd眉. Alex鈥檌n 枚yk眉s眉, derin ve merkezi bir noktaya 谋艧谋k tutmaktad谋r: Biyolojiniz de臒i艧ince kararlar谋n谋z, istekleriniz ve tutkular谋n谋z da de臒i艧ebilir. Do臒al farz etti臒iniz g眉d眉ler (鈥淏en bir hetero/homoseks眉elim,鈥� 鈥溍噊cuklar/yeti艧kinler beni 莽eker,鈥� 鈥淪ald谋rgan/uysal bir yap谋m var,鈥� vs.), asl谋nda n枚ral mekanizman谋n incelikli ayr谋nt谋lar谋yla belirlenir. Bu t眉r g眉d眉ler merkezinde davranman谋n genelde bir 枚zg眉r se莽im meselesi oldu臒u d眉艧眉n眉lse de, kan谋tlarla ilgili en 眉st眉nk枚r眉 inceleme bile bu varsay谋m谋n s谋n谋rlar谋n谋 g枚zler 枚n眉ne serer. Birazdan bununla ilgili ba艧ka 枚rnekler de g枚rece臒iz. Alex鈥檌n 枚yk眉s眉nden 莽谋kar谋lacak dersin, daha sonraki beklenmedik geli艧melerle g眉莽lendi臒ini g枚r眉r眉z. Ge莽irdi臒i beyin ameliyat谋ndan alt谋 ay kadar sonra pedofilik davran谋艧lar谋n yeniden kendini g枚stermeye ba艧lamas谋 眉zerine, e艧i onu yine doktora g枚t眉rd眉. N枚roradyolog, t眉m枚r眉n bir k谋sm谋n谋n ameliyatta atlanm谋艧 oldu臒unu ve yeniden b眉y眉meye ba艧lad谋臒谋n谋 ke艧fetti. Alex yeniden b谋莽ak alt谋na yatt谋. Kalan t眉m枚r par莽as谋n谋n da al谋nmas谋ndan sonra davran谋艧lar谋 bir kez daha normale d枚nd眉. Alex鈥檛e aniden ortaya 莽谋kan pedofili, gizli g眉d眉 ve arzular谋n kimi zaman toplumsall谋臒谋n n枚ral 莽arklar谋 aras谋nda fark edilmeksizin gizlenmi艧 bi莽imde kalabilece臒ini g枚sterir. Al谋n lobu (frontal lob) hasar g枚rd眉臒眉nde, insanlar dizginlerinden kurtulup beyinsel demokrasi i莽inde yer alan daha olumsuz unsurlar谋n varl谋臒谋n谋 g枚zler 枚n眉ne sererler. Bu durumda Alex鈥檌n 鈥溍秡眉nde鈥� bir pedofil ve yaln谋zca g眉d眉lerine direnmek i莽in toplumsalla艧m谋艧 oldu臒unu s枚ylemek do臒ru olur mu? Belki de. Ama yine de etiketleri yap谋艧t谋rmadan 枚nce, kendi al谋n korteksiniz alt谋nda gizlenmi艧 bekliyor olabilecek yabanc谋 alt programlar谋 bir g眉n ke艧fetmek isteyip istemeyece臒inizi d眉艧眉n眉n鈥︹€�
PARK陌NSON 陌LACI ve KUMAR 陌L陌艦K陌S陌 / 鈥�...2001 y谋l谋nda Parkinson hastalar谋n谋n aileleri ve bak谋c谋lar谋, bir tuhafl谋k oldu臒unun fark谋na varmaya ba艧lad谋lar. Pramipeksol adl谋 ilac谋n verildi臒i hastalardan bir k谋sm谋 kumarbaza d枚n眉艧眉yordu ; 眉stelik 枚ylesine kumar oynayanlara de臒il, hastal谋kl谋 kumarbazlara. Daha 枚nce kumara herhangi bir e臒ilim g枚stermemi艧 olan bu hastalar, art谋k d眉zenli bi莽imde Vegas鈥檃 u莽ar olmu艧lard谋. Altm谋艧 sekiz ya艧谋ndaki bir adam, ziyaret etti臒i bir dizi kumarhanede alt谋 ay i莽inde toplam 200 bin dolar tutar谋nda para kaybetmi艧ti. 陌nternet pokerine tak谋l谋p kalan kimi hastalar ise 枚deyemeyecekleri kredi kart谋 bor莽lar谋n谋n alt谋nda ezilmi艧ti. Hastalar谋n 莽o臒u, bu kay谋plar谋 ailelerinden gizlemek i莽in ellerinden geleni yap谋yordu. Bu yeni ba臒谋ml谋l谋k, baz谋lar谋 i莽in kumar谋n da 枚tesine ge莽erek 鈥渮orlan谋ml谋鈥� (kompulsif) yeme al谋艧kanl谋klar谋na, alkol t眉ketimine ve a艧谋r谋 cinselli臒e kadar varm谋艧t谋鈥︹€�
SSRI 陌LA脟 GRUBU / 鈥�...D眉zinelerce ba艧ka sinirsel ileticinin (枚rne臒in; serotonin) mutlak d眉zeyleri kendinizi nas谋l biri olarak g枚rd眉臒眉n眉z konusunda kritik 枚nem ta艧谋r. E臒er klinik depresyondan mustaripseniz, size re莽ete edilen ila莽, b眉y眉k olas谋l谋kla se莽ici serotonin geri-al谋m bask谋lay谋c谋s谋 (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor - SSRI) olarak bilinen ila莽 grubunun bir 眉yesi olacakt谋r: fluoksetin, sertralin, paroksetin ya da sitalopram. Bu ila莽lar谋n etkilerini nas谋l g枚sterdi臒ine dair bilmeniz gereken her 艧ey 鈥済eri-al谋m bask谋lay谋c谋s谋鈥� s枚zc眉klerinde gizlidir: Normalde, 鈥渢a艧谋y谋c谋鈥� (transporter) olarak adland谋r谋lan kanallar, n枚ronlar aras谋 bo艧lukta bulunan fazla serotonini geri toplar; bu kanallar谋n bask谋lanmas谋, beyindeki serotonin d眉zeyinin artmas谋na neden olur. Artm谋艧 serotonin konsantrasyonu ise bili艧 (cognition) ve duygular 眉zerinde do臒rudan etki g枚sterir. Bu ila莽lar谋 alanlar, 枚ncesinde yata臒谋n kenar谋na oturmu艧 a臒larken, 艧imdi aya臒a kalkm谋艧, du艧unu alm谋艧, i艧ini geri kazanm谋艧 ve ya艧am谋ndaki insanlarla yeniden sa臒l谋kl谋 ili艧kiler kurmu艧 olarak bulabilirler kendilerini. Ve bunlar谋n hepsi de sinirsel iletici sistemleri 眉zerinde yap谋lan belli belirsiz bir ince ayar sayesindedir鈥︹€�
艦AKAK LOBU SARASI ve JEAN D鈥橝RC / 鈥�...Sara n枚beti e臒er 艧akak lobundaki (temporal lob) belirli bir noktada odaklan谋yorsa, ki艧i motor n枚betler ge莽irmeyecek, daha 眉st眉 kapal谋 bir deneyim ya艧ayacakt谋r. Bir t眉r bili艧sel n枚bet olarak tan谋mlanabilecek bu etki, ki艧ilik de臒i艧imleri, a艧谋r谋 dinsellik (din saplant谋s谋 ve din konusunda kendinden a艧谋r谋 emin olma), hipergrafi (genellikle de din olmak 眉zere belirli bir konuda a艧谋r谋 derecede yazma iste臒i duyma), 莽evrede bir d谋艧sal varl谋k oldu臒u yan谋lg谋s谋 ve s谋kl谋kla da, tanr谋ya atfedilen sesler duyma gibi durumlarla kendini g枚sterir. Tarihte ortaya 莽谋km谋艧 peygamberler, kahramanlar ve liderlerin bir b枚l眉m眉n眉n 艧akak lobu odakl谋 sara hastalar谋 oldu臒u d眉艧眉n眉lmektedir." Ba艧 melek Mikail鈥檌n 陌skenderiyeli Azize Katerina鈥檔谋n, Azize Margaret'in ve Cebrail鈥檌n seslerini duydu臒u konusunda hem kendisini hem de Frans谋z askerlerini ikna ederek on alt谋 ya艧谋ndayken Y眉z Y谋l Sava艧lar谋鈥檔谋n gidi艧at谋n谋 de臒i艧tirmeyi ba艧aran Jean D鈥橝rc鈥櫮� d眉艧眉n眉n. Kendisi, bu deneyimini 艧枚yle anlatm谋艧t谋: 鈥淥n 眉莽 ya艧谋mdayken, Tanr谋鈥檔谋n, kendimi y枚nlendirmemde bana yard谋mc谋 olan sesini duydum. 陌lk seferinde 莽ok korkmu艧tum. Ses bana 枚臒le vakti duyurmu艧tu kendini. Mevsimlerden yazd谋 ve o s谋rada babam谋n bah莽esindeydim.鈥� 艦枚yle devam ediyordu: 鈥淭anr谋 bana gitmemi emretti臒ine g枚re gitmeliydim. Ve bu emri bana veren Tanr谋 oldu臒u i莽in, y眉z babaya ve y眉z anneye sahip olsayd谋m ya da bir kral谋n k谋z谋 olsayd谋m bile giderdim yine de.鈥� Geriye d枚n眉k kesin tan谋 koymak bu durumda olanaks谋z olsa da Jean D鈥橝rc鈥櫮眓 sundu臒u veriler, artan dindarl谋臒谋, s眉regiden sesler, 艧akak lobu saras谋 ile kesinlikle uyumludur. Beyin do臒ru noktada uyar谋ld谋臒谋nda, insan sesler duyar. Doktor, sara etkilerine kar艧谋 koyacak ila莽lar yazd谋臒谋ndaysa n枚betler ortadan kalkar, sesler kaybolur. Sonu莽ta ger莽ekli臒imiz, biyolojimizin ne i艧ler kar谋艧t谋rd谋臒谋na ba臒l谋d谋r鈥︹€�
HUNTINGTON HASTALI臑I / 鈥�...Biyolojiye olan ba臒谋ml谋l谋臒谋m谋za son 枚rnek olarak, tek bir gendeki k眉莽眉k bir mutasyonun da davran谋艧谋 belirleyip de臒i艧tirebilece臒ini s枚yleyelim. Al谋n korteksinde (frontal korteks) ilerleyerek geli艧en baz谋 hasarlar谋n ki艧ilik de臒i艧imlerine yol a莽t谋臒谋 Huntington hastal谋臒谋nda sald谋rganl谋k, sekse a艧谋r谋 d眉艧k眉nl眉k (hiperseks眉alite), d眉rt眉sel ve toplumsal kurallar谋 hi莽e sayan davran谋艧lar vb. belirtiler, fark edilmesi daha kolay spastik kol bacak hareketlerinden y谋llar 枚nce ortaya 莽谋kar. Burada konumuz a莽谋s谋ndan as谋l 枚nemli nokta, Huntington hastal谋臒谋n谋n tek bir gende ger莽ekle艧en bir mutasyonla ortaya 莽谋kt谋臒谋d谋r. Robert Sapolsky鈥檔in 枚zetledi臒i gibi 鈥淥n binlerce gen aras谋ndan tek bir tanesindeki bir de臒i艧iklik, 枚mr眉n ortalar谋nda bir yerde dramatik bir ki艧ilik de臒i艧imiyle sonu莽lanacakt谋r鈥�.' Bu t眉r 枚rnekler kar艧谋s谋nda kimli臒imizin 枚z眉n眉n, biyolojimizin ayr谋nt谋lar谋na ba臒谋ml谋 oldu臒u d谋艧谋nda bir sonuca varabilir miyiz? Bir Huntington hastas谋na, 枚zg眉r iradesini kullan谋p b枚yle tuhaf davranmaktan vazge莽mesini s枚yleyebilir miyiz?...鈥�
BEYN陌M陌Z TA KEND陌M陌Z / 鈥�...Maddecili臒in yanl谋艧 oldu臒unu s枚ylemedi臒im gibi, yanl谋艧 oldu臒unu umdu臒umu bile s枚ylemiyorum. Ne de olsa maddeci bir evren bile akl谋m谋z谋 ba艧谋m谋zdan alacak kadar muhte艧em ve ilgin莽 olacakt谋r. Bir an i莽in, molek眉llerin bir araya gelip do臒al se莽ilimin kurallar谋nca 莽o臒almalar谋ndan olu艧an milyarlarca y谋ll谋k bir s眉recin birer 眉r眉n眉nden ibaret oldu臒umuzu d眉艧眉n眉n: Dans edip duran milyarlarca h眉crenin i莽inde s谋v谋 ve kimyasallar谋n akt谋臒谋 y谋臒谋nla yoldan olu艧mu艧uz yaln谋zca. 陌莽imiz, paralel seyreden trilyonlarca sinaptik konu艧man谋n v谋z谋lt谋s谋ndan ge莽ilmiyor; mikron 枚l莽e臒indeki devrelerden olu艧mu艧 bu geni艧 yumurtams谋 doku, modern bilimin hayal bile edemeyece臒i algoritmalar kullan谋yor ve bu n枚ral programlar da bizim kararlar谋m谋z谋n, a艧klar谋m谋z谋n, tutkular谋m谋z谋n, korkular谋m谋z谋n ve isteklerimizin do臒mas谋na yol a莽谋yor. Bu, bana g枚re inan谋lmaz bir deneyim olurdu; kutsal kitaplarda savunulan her 艧eyden daha muhte艧em bir deneyim. Bilimin 艧imdiki s谋n谋rlar谋 d谋艧谋nda yer alan ne varsa, hepsi de gelecek nesiller i莽in a莽谋k birer soru konumundad谋r; isterse kat谋 kurall谋 bir maddecilik olsun. Bu bile yeter de artar.
Evren, onu 艧imdiye kadar d眉艧lemi艧 oldu臒umuzdan nas谋l daha b眉y眉kse, bizler de i莽 g枚zlem yoluyla hissetti臒imizden daha b眉y眉k birer varl谋臒谋z. 艦u s谋ralarda i莽 uzay谋n enginli臒ine ilk bak谋艧lar谋m谋z谋 atmaktay谋z. Bu i莽sel, gizli ve yak谋n evrenin kendi hedeflerini, kendi gerekliliklerini ve kendi mant谋臒谋n谋 dayatt谋臒谋n谋 g枚r眉yoruz. Beyin, kendimize yabanc谋 hissetti臒imiz, tuhaf bir organ olsa da, ayr谋nt谋l谋 devre 枚r眉nt眉leri i莽sel ya艧ant谋m谋z谋n manzaras谋na bi莽im verebiliyor. Ne inan谋lmaz, ne 艧a艧谋rt谋c谋 bir 艧aheserdir beyin. Ve bizler de ne 艧ansl谋y谋z ki, dikkatimizi ona yo臒unla艧t谋rmam谋za olanak sa臒layan teknoloji ve iradeye sahip bir neslin 眉yeleriyiz. Evrende ke艧fetmi艧 oldu臒umuz en harikulade 艧ey bu: Beynimiz, yani ta kendimiz鈥︹€�


Profile Image for Isil Arican.
243 reviews188 followers
March 22, 2017
Very simply narrated neuroscience book that explains some of the interesting neuroscientific phenomena. The writer has a easy to read style with many examples, and even though he does not go deep, he tells a lot about interesting things surrounding cognitive science. If I was a new reader to the area, probably I would have liked the book better and would give more stars. However, it was not very fulfilling for me, since I read a lot about on the same subject, and some of them were much better and more detailed.

Why 3 stars?

1. He explains some things in a too simplistic way. Again, good for the wow factor, not so good if you really are interested finding out whys. This level of simplicity also waters down some issues and as the writer jumps from conclusion to conclusion, it makes you think whether these were too premature.
2. Some of the research/ studies he cites are out of date. With the replicability crisis on cognitive science we know some of these studies are in fact poorly conducted and could not be replicated. Their conclusions are careless generalizations. And unfortunately lot of premises of the book relies on these premature non-asserted conclusions.

3. The last episode goes into a long tirade of bashing rationalist approach. The writer thinks that the materialist approach is overrated and it favors reductionism and advocate there might be more than what it seems to many phenomena. However, his attitude during the rest of the book contradicts his stance, since he takes many of the observational studies results as "facts". Also his examples for arguing against the materialism is faulty in my opinion. For example he gives an example of quantum physics as a proof that this approach does not work, since it contradicts the newtonian physics. I respectfully disagree, since this only proves that we thought we knew how matter was formed before, but now we know better with additional informations and observations. This does not disprove materialistic approach at all. Just because we updated what we knew with the new things we learned is not an argument against materialism or reductionism, it shows that our understanding how the world works improves with the new things we learn. In this last episode, it felt like he is invoking an "supernatural" explanation for some phenomena, beyond materialism.

4. His last episode also contradicts with an earlier episode he wrote regarding justice system. Even though he bashed materialism and criticizes Occam's Razor as being too reductionist, he does not shy away making hasty generalizations on how criminals should be treated based upon couple of examples he mentions in the book.

Overall, an entertaining book, but has some internal contradictions. Also do not wait for lot of depth, it is more like a compilation of popular cognitive science literature sprinkled with personal opinions on how we know what we know.

I listened this book while doing errands and driving, so it was not bad, But I am glad I did not sit down and spend time to read it.

Again, if it is your first introduction to neuroscience, it is a fun book, but take his conclusions with a grain of salt.
Profile Image for Daniel Chaikin.
593 reviews67 followers
June 17, 2019
One of the most enjoyable audio books I've listened to. Eagleman has me thinking about the mysterious and various parts of the brain, about how slow and inefficient our consciousness is and about how much goes on unconsciously, deep in the brain, and about all the odd things that happen to people because of tumors, strokes and brain injuries, and about how complex the brain is, and about how little we understand it (his analogy is that it is like studying earth from orbit in space).

He has another cool analogy on the unpredictability of true causes. He looks at a scientific analysis of a found, working radio and has the scientist study it, taking different pieces apart to discover how it works, and concluding the the wiring is the critical feature to make a radio talk and play music. How would one go from there to even considering radio waves. And that is science. The answers aren't around the corner, they are outside our current conceptual framework.

This also has me thinking about how little of the world we are able to sense, yet we have no concept of what we can't sense. Because what we do sense is our reality.

And about how we make a decision while different parts of our brain are battling against each other to lead us to the decision of that part. Each decision being the winner of multiple unconscious battles in the brain. And how little control we have over that.

There are, I imagine, many books like this. But Eagleman did a great of job getting me excited about all the information he had to share, and in audio form (he reads it himself), which means it's not too complicated to listen to, but also that reads very nicely.
Profile Image for hayatem.
784 reviews164 followers
February 3, 2018

"鬲賵噩丿 丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲 亘賷賳賳丕 賵亘賷賳 兀賳賮爻賳丕 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賷賵噩丿 賲賳 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮丕鬲 亘賷賳賳丕 賵亘賷賳 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 ."
鈥斬з勝冐ж� 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷 賲賷卮賷賱 丿賷 賲賵賳鬲賷賳 .

丕賱爻丐丕賱 賴賵:
賲丕 賴賷 毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱噩賴丕夭 丕賱毓氐亘賷 亘爻賱賵賰 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵乇爻賲 賵丕賯毓賴 責
賵 賰賷賮 賷爻鬲賯亘賱 丕賱丿賲丕睾 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賵賰賷賮 賷睾乇亘賱賴丕 賱賰賷 賷噩丿 丕賱乇賵丕亘胤 兀賵 丕賱兀賳賲丕胤 丕賱噩丕賲毓丞 亘賷賳賴丕 賱鬲賮爻賷乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賵丕賯毓責

賷亘丨孬 廿賷噩賱賲丕賳 賮賷 丌禺乇 賲丕 賵氐賱 廿賱賷賴 丕賱毓賱賲 丕賱丨丿賷孬 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱兀毓氐丕亘 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞貙 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賲 亘噩賵賱丞 卮丕賲賱丞 賮賷 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 亘兀亘毓丕丿賴 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賲鬲賯氐賷丕賸 賮賷 丌賱賷丞 毓賲賱 丕賱丿賲丕睾 賵賲丕 禺賮賷 賲賳賴"丕賱賱丕賵毓賷"貙 毓亘乇 爻亘乇 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賱爻賳丕 賵丕毓賷賳 亘賴丕 兀賵 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰丕鬲 睾賷乇 丕賱賲丨爻賵爻丞 賵兀孬乇賴丕 賮賷 鬲卮賰賷賱 賯乇丕乇丕鬲賳丕 賵鬲賵噩賷賴 鬲氐乇賮丕鬲賳丕.
賷賯賵賱 丕賱賮賳丕賳 亘賽賳賰 賮賱賵賷丿:
"孬賲丞 卮禺氐 賲丕 賮賷 乇兀爻賷 貙 賱賰賳賴 賱賷爻 兀賳丕! "

賰賲丕 鬲賵睾賱 賮賷 亘丨孬賴 賮賷 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賱丕卮毓賵乇. 賲毓 鬲亘賷丕賳 丕賱兀爻爻 丕賱毓氐亘賷丞 賱賱爻賱賵賰 賵丕賱匕丕賰乇丞 賵丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 .
賷賳丕賯卮 廿賷噩賱賲丕賳 兀孬乇 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱丨賷丕鬲賷丞 賮賷 鬲卮賰賷賱 兀丿賲睾鬲賳丕貙 賵丕賱兀爻亘丕亘 丕賱鬲賷 鬲噩毓賱賳丕 兀賰孬乇 丕爻鬲毓丿丕丿丕賸 賱爻賱賵賰 胤乇賷賯丞 賲丕 丿賵賳 兀禺乇賶貙 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 毓乇囟 兀賲孬賱丞 賵 鬲噩丕乇亘 賲賳 丕賱賲毓丕卮 丕賱賷賵賲賷貙 賵兀禺乇賶 毓賱賲賷丞.

賵馗賮 廿賷噩賱賲丕賳貙 毓丿丿 賲賳 賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賵賲丿丕乇爻 毓賱賲 丕賱賳賮爻 賮賷 亘丨孬賴 貙 賰 毓賱賲 丕賱賳賮爻 丕賱毓氐亘賷貙 賵毓賱賲 丕賱賳賮爻 丕賱鬲胤賵乇賷貙 賮賷 賯賷丕爻 賵賲賱丕丨馗丞 賵 乇氐丿 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱爻賱賵賰 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賵 丕賱噩賴丕夭 丕賱毓氐亘賷 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳.

"丕賱丿賲丕睾 毓丕賱賲 囟禺賲 賷囟丕賴賷 囟禺丕賲丞 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賱匕賷 賲丕 夭賱賳丕 賳噩賴賱賴貙 廿賳賴 賲賳 兀賰孬乇 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丿賴卮丞 賵廿孬丕乇丞 賱賱廿毓噩丕亘 賲賳 賰賱 賲丕 丕賰鬲卮賮賳丕賴 賮賷 丕賱賰賵賳貙 孬賲 廿賳賴 賳丨賳."鈥� 丿賷賮賷丿 廿賷噩賱賲丕賳

丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓馗賷賲 賱賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘毓賱賲 丕賱兀毓氐丕亘 丕賱爻賱賵賰賷丞貙 賵丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱兀丨賷丕卅賷丞.


Profile Image for 丿.兀賲噩丿 丕賱噩賳亘丕夭.
Author听3 books806 followers
November 10, 2015
賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷賱 噩丿丕貙 賷胤乇丨 賮賰乇丞 噩丿賷丿丞 毓賳 賰賷賮賷丞 毓賲賱 丕賱丿賲丕睾 亘卮賰賱 禺丕乇噩 毓賳 丕乇丕丿鬲賳丕

亘丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 丕賳 賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賲賵噩賵丿丞 賮賷 賰鬲亘 兀禺乇賶貙 賱賰賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘賰丕賲賱賴 賷鬲賲丨賵乇 丨賵賱 匕賱賰.

賲賳 丕賱丕賲孬賱丞 丕賱賲匕賰賵乇丞
賰賷賮 賷鬲丨賵賱 賲乇囟賶 亘丕乇賳賰賳爻賵賳 丕賱匕賷賳 賷鬲毓丕賱噩賵賳 亘丕賱兀丿賵賷丞 廿賱賶 賲丿賲賳賷賳 毓賱賶 丕賱賲賯丕賲乇丞
賰賷賮 賷鬲爻亘亘 賵乇賲 氐睾賷乇 亘丕賱丿賲丕睾 廿賱賶 鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱卮禺氐 廿賱賶 賲噩乇賲貙 兀賵 丨鬲賶 鬲睾賷賷乇 乇睾亘鬲賴 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 賵鬲丨賵賷賱賴 廿賱賶 賲鬲丨乇卮 亘丕賱兀胤賮丕賱

賵賴賳丕 賷禺乇锟斤拷 丕賱賲丐賱賮 亘賳鬲賷噩丞 賲乇毓亘丞
賵賴賷 兀賳賳丕 賱爻賳丕 賲爻丐賱賷賳 毓賳 丕賱睾丕賱亘賷丞 丕賱毓馗賲賶 賲賳 賲賳 爻賱賵賰賳丕
賵丕賳賲丕 賴賷 亘爻亘亘 丿賲丕睾賳丕貙 丕賱匕賷 噩丕亍賳丕 亘丕賱賵乇丕孬丞

賵賴賳丕 賷胤乇丨 賯囟賷丞 禺胤賷乇丞 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞貙 賵賴賷 毓賱賷賳丕 賲丨丕爻亘丞 丕賱賲噩乇賲賷賳 毓賱賶 鬲氐乇賮丕鬲賴賲 賲毓 丕賳 丕賱丿賲丕睾 賴賵 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱 丕賱兀賴賲 毓賳賴丕

賵賲毓 丕賳賷 丕禺丕賱賮賴 賮賷 匕賱賰 鬲賲丕賲丕

廿賱丕 兀賳 匕賱賰 賷胤乇丨 鬲爻丕丐賱 乇卅賷爻賷
賮亘賲丕 兀賳 丕丨丿賳丕 賱丿賷賴 賳夭毓丞 賱丕乇鬲賰丕亘 亘毓囟 丕賱賲毓丕氐賷 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 丕賱丌禺乇 亘爻亘亘 鬲乇賰賷亘丞 丿賲丕睾賴賲
賮賲丕賴賷 丕賱丨丿賵丿 賵丕賱兀爻爻 丕賱鬲賷 爻賷丨丕爻亘賳丕 丕賱賱賴 毓賱賷賴丕責

賱賰賳賷 賲胤賲卅賳 亘兀賳 丕賱賱賴 毓丕丿賱 丨賰賷賲貙 賱丕 賷馗賱賲 毓賳丿賴 兀丨丿
Profile Image for RKanimalkingdom.
526 reviews72 followers
July 31, 2018
Sublime. Absolutely Sublime.

I've said it time and time again that an outstanding book is one that leaves me speechless with incomprehensible gibberish being the only sounds you hear. After all, how can I summarize what is already so eloquently told by the book itself? It's an experience you must go through yourself.

Most of us are aware that our brain can be split simply into two parts; the conscious and the unconscious. But beyond that, do we consider anything? Do we even care? Surely the most important part of our brain is the part we use in our daily life, no?

Profile Image for 爻丕賲賷.
52 reviews851 followers
December 23, 2018
丕賱賲乇丕噩毓丞 丕賱賲乇卅賷丞 乇賯賲 佟贍侉 賮賷 馗賱 賰鬲丕亘:
鈥�

賷爻鬲禺賱氐 丿賷賮賷丿 廿賷噩賱賲丕賳 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕爻鬲毓乇丕囟 丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 賱丿賲丕睾 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賳鬲賷噩丞 禺胤賷乇丞 賵賴賷 兀賳 賯乇丕乇丕鬲賳丕 賱賷爻鬲 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 賳丕鬲噩丞 毓賳 賵毓賷 賵卮毓賵乇貙 亘賱 賴賷 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 賲賳 丕賱賱丕賵锟斤拷賷 賵丕賱賱丕卮毓賵乇 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲卮賰賱 賮賷 兀丿賲睾鬲賳丕 亘胤乇賷賯丞 賱丕 賳丿乇賰賴丕. 賮賯乇丕乇丕鬲賳丕 賯丿 鬲卮賰賱鬲 賵鬲賰賵賳鬲 禺丕乇噩 賵毓賷賳丕 賵廿丿乇丕賰賳丕貙 賮賳丨賳 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賱賲 賳鬲禺匕賴丕貙 廿賳賲丕 丕鬲禺匕賴丕 卮禺氐 丌禺乇貙 丕鬲禺匕賴 匕賱賰 丕賱丿賲丕睾 丕賱匕賷 賷丨賱賱 毓賵丕賲賱 賱丕 賳丿乇賰賴丕貙 亘胤乇賷賯丞 賯丿 賱丕 賳丿乇賰賴丕貙 賵賴賵 賲丕 丿賮毓 亘丕賱賲丐賱賮 賱賷亘丿兀 賰鬲丕亘賴 賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱兀賵賱 亘毓賳賵丕賳: 孬賲丞 卮禺氐 賮賷 乇兀爻賷貙 賱賰賳賴 賱賷爻 兀賳丕.
賵賷丨丕賵賱 丿賷賮賷丿 廿賷噩賱賲丕賳貙 兀賳 賷匕賰乇 丕賱丨賷賵丕鬲 丕賱爻乇賷丞 賱賱丿賲丕睾貙 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱丞 毓賳 丕禺鬲賷丕乇丕鬲賳丕 賵賯乇丕乇丕鬲賳丕 賵廿乇丕丿丕鬲賳丕 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 毓氐亘賷丞貙 丕賱丿賲丕睾 丕賱匕賷 賷爻賷乇 賰丿丕卅乇丞 賰賴乇亘丕卅賷丞 鬲乇爻賱 廿卮丕乇丕鬲 賵鬲鬲賱賯賶 廿卮丕乇丕鬲 賵鬲毓丕賱噩賴丕 亘胤乇賷賯丞 賱丕 賳丿乇賰賴丕.
賷丐賰丿 廿賷噩賱賲丕賳 賮賰乇鬲賴 亘丕賱氐賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 賵噩丿賵賴丕 亘賷賳 丨丕賱丞 丕賱丿賲丕睾 賵亘賷賳 賯乇丕乇丕鬲賳丕 賵鬲氐乇賮丕鬲賳丕 賰丕賱噩乇賷賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 賵賯毓鬲 爻賳丞 1966貙 丨賷賳賲丕 賯鬲賱 乇噩賱 賵丕賱丿鬲賴 賵夭賵噩鬲賴 賵兀胤賱賯 丕賱乇氐丕氐 亘卮賰賱 毓卮賵丕卅賷 毓賱賶 丕賱賳丕爻 孬賲 丕賳鬲丨乇貙 孬賲 賱賲丕 兀禺匕鬲 噩孬鬲賴 賵卮乇丨鬲貙 賵噩丿賵丕 賵乇賲賸丕 賮賷 丿賲丕睾賴 亘丨噩賲 賯胤毓丞 賳賯丿賷丞 氐睾賷乇丞 賵賳賲丕 賴匕丕 丕賱賵乇賲 賵囟睾胤 毓賱賶 賲賳胤賯丞 賲爻丐賵賱丞 毓賳 鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賳賮毓丕賱丕鬲賳丕 賵毓賳 賵馗賷賮丞 丕賱禺賵賮 賵丕賱毓丿賵丕賳賷丞貙 亘賲毓賳賶 兀賳 廿乇丕丿鬲賴 丕賱鬲賷 丕鬲禺匕 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴丕 鬲氐乇賮丕鬲賴 丕賱毓丿賵丕賳賷丞 賯丿 鬲卮賰賱鬲 賮賷 丿賲丕睾賴 亘鬲兀孬賷乇 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賵乇賲.
賵乇亘賲丕 賰丕賳 兀賰亘乇 爻丐丕賱 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲胤乇丨賴 鬲賱賰 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賴賵 賲丕 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 廿乇丕丿丞 丨乇丞貙 賮賳丨賳 賮賷賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕賱鬲賳卮賷卅丞貙 賱賲 賳禺鬲乇 兀賷丕 賲賳賴賲丕貙 賰賱 賵丕丨丿 賲賳丕 賲乇賰亘 賲賳 禺胤丞 賵乇丕孬賷丞 賲丕 賵噩卅賳丕 廿賱賶 毓丕賱賲 賲賳 丕賱馗乇賵賮 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 賳賲賱賰 禺賷丕乇賸丕 賮賷賴丕貙 賵 丕賱鬲賮丕毓賱 亘賷賳 丕賱賲賵乇賵孬丕鬲 賵丕賱亘賷卅丞 賴賷 賲丕 卮賰賱鬲 禺賷丕乇丕鬲賳丕 賵廿乇丕丿丕鬲賳丕 賵鬲氐乇賮丕鬲賳丕貙 賲賲丕 爻賷賯賵丿賳丕 廿賱賶 爻丐丕賱 丌禺乇 賴賵 賮賷賲丕 賱賵 賰丕賳 爻丐丕賱 丕爻鬲丨賯丕賯 丕賱賱賵賲 賮賷 丕賱禺胤兀 賲賲賰賳賸丕.
.
馃摉 毓丿丿 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲: 伲佟佗
馃搳 丕賱鬲賯賷賷賲 丕賱賳賴丕卅賷: 伽.佶 賲賳 佶
Profile Image for Mohamed Metwally.
785 reviews129 followers
February 26, 2025
A good book, raising several questions that keep getting back to me from time to time, like who is really ME? and when I argue with myself, feeling a personal conflict over some decision, like eating a bar of Chocolate and some part of me says enjoy it!, while another part says you'll get fat!. At that time who is arguing with whom? and which of them is ME?

The book as mentioned in many reviews. represents the author's view, but this is the case in the second half of the book when he starts laying down his theories after stating many facts and valid arguments, explaining complex scientific stuff in layman terms.

Sometimes I agreed with him, had a different opinion in many issues, but enjoyed the argument as a whole

MiM
Profile Image for Cem Binbir.
38 reviews43 followers
June 21, 2017
Bilin莽alt谋 dedi臒imiz k谋sm谋n, beynin i艧leyi艧inde asl谋nda ne kadar bask谋n oldu臒unu 枚rnekler ve ara艧t谋rma sonu莽lar谋yla anlatan bir kitap. Bunun yan谋nda, 枚zellikle yak谋n zamanda edinilen 莽e艧itli bilgiler 眉zerinden gelecekteki toplum ya艧am谋na, su莽, ceza ve adalet kavramlar谋na dair yorumlarda da bulunuyor yazar. Bu konularda bilimsel g眉ndemi yak谋ndan takip ediyor, 莽ok莽a makale / kitap okuyorsan谋z bu kitap size ilgin莽 gelmeyebilir. Ama genel bir ilginiz var ve bilginizi artt谋rmak istiyorsan谋z faydal谋 olacakt谋r.
Profile Image for Emre Turkmen.
86 reviews20 followers
April 2, 2021
Do臒an C眉celo臒lu鈥檔un da 枚nerdi臒i bu kitab谋 herkes okumal谋. Kitap bana 莽ok 艧ey 枚臒retti馃憦馃憦
Profile Image for A. Raca.
764 reviews166 followers
August 6, 2020
"G枚zleri belirli bir 艧eye dikmenin onu g枚rmek anlam谋na gelmedi臒ini ilk ke艧fedenler n枚robilimciler de臒ildi. Sihirbazlar durumun fark谋na 莽ok daha 枚nce varm谋艧 ve bu bilgiyi kullan谋p geli艧tirmenin yollar谋n谋 bulmu艧lard谋."

Neden daha 枚nce mesafeli yakla艧t谋臒谋m谋 anlamad谋m.

馃挌
Profile Image for Hani.
36 reviews27 followers
December 30, 2020
丕诏賴 亘禺賵丕賲 讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘丕 禺蹖丕賱 乇丕丨鬲 賲毓乇賮蹖 讴賳賲 讴爻蹖 亘丕 賲睾夭卮 丌卮賳丕鬲乇 亘卮賴 貙亘賮賴賲賴 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 鬲賵賴賲賴貙亘賮賴賲賴 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲蹖 讴賴 丨爻 賲蹖讴賳賴 亘丕 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 噩賴丕賳 亘蹖乇賵賳 趩賯丿乇 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲賴 貙讴鬲丕亘丕蹖 丕蹖诏賱賲賳賴 賵 亘乇丕蹖 讴爻蹖 讴賴 蹖讴賲 鬲賳亘賱賴 賲爻鬲賳丿賴丕卮賵 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賲蹖丿賲
丕蹖賳讴賴 亘鬲賵賳蹖 讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘賳賵蹖爻蹖 讴賴 賴賲 讴賱蹖 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 毓賱賲蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賴 賴賲 賮賱爻賮賴 禺賱胤 卮丿賴 亘丕卮賴 鬲賵卮 賴賲 賲睾賱胤賴 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賴 丕蹖賳 賵爻胤丕 貙讴丕乇 賴乇 讴爻蹖 賳蹖爻 丿蹖丿賲 讴賴 賲蹖诏賲
讴賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘 倬丕倬 爻丕蹖賳爻 卮丕賴丿賲賴 讴賴 鬲賵蹖 倬乇賮乇賵卮 亘賵丿賳 賵 賲睾賱胤賴鈥屭┴ж臂� 丕爻鬲丕丿賳 賵賱蹖 丕蹖賳 賮乇賯 丿丕乇賴
亘乇丕蹖 丨爻賳 禺鬲丕賲 蹖賴 爻賳丿乇賵賲 賲毓乇賮蹖 讴賳賲
爻賳丿乇賵賲 丌賳鬲賵賳
丿乇 丕蹖賳 亘蹖賲丕乇蹖 趩卮賲 賴丕蹖 賮乇丿 讴丕賲賱丕 讴賵乇賴 賵 賴蹖趩 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 丨爻蹖 亘賴 賲丿丕乇賴丕蹖 賲睾夭卮 鬲丨賵蹖賱 丿丕丿賴 賳賲蹖卮賴 賵賱蹖 丕賵賳 賲丿賱蹖 丕夭 噩賴丕賳 倬蹖乇丕賲賵賳 丿乇 匕賴賳卮 丿丕乇賴 讴賴 鬲賵賴賲 賲蹖夭賳賴 賲蹖亘蹖賳賴 賮乇丿 丿乇賵睾 賳賲蹖诏賴 賵賱蹖 鬲丕 賵賯鬲蹖 讴賴 亘丕 丕爻亘丕亘 賵 丕孬丕孬蹖賴 禺賵賳賴 亘乇禺賵乇丿 賳讴賳賴 亘丕賵乇 賳賲蹖讴賳賴 賳賲蹖亘蹖賳賴 趩賵賳 丕丿乇丕讴 丨爻蹖 丿丕乇賴 賲孬賱 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 賲賳 丕夭 丿賳蹖丕 賲蹖亘蹖賳賲

丿诏 亘賯蹖賴 乇賵 賱賵 賳賲蹖丿賲 丕賵賳丕蹖蹖 讴賴 毓丕卮賯 賳賵乇賵爻丕蹖賳爻 蹖丕 賮賱爻賮賴 匕賴賳賳 禺賵丿卮賵賳 亘乇賳 亘禺賵賳賳貨)
Profile Image for Travis.
837 reviews203 followers
June 20, 2011
Do you believe in libertarian free will or Cartesian dualism? If so, David Eagleman鈥檚 Incognito will radically challenge your beliefs.

Incognito is probably the best work of nonfiction that I have read this year (2011), and it is also one of the best books on neuroscience that I have read in quite some time. Some of the material here has been presented elsewhere (if you have read works on neuroscience or consciousness by scientists and philosophers like Antonio Damasio, V. S. Ramachandran, Joseph Ledoux, Alva Noe, Patricia Churchland, and Daniel Dennett, much of the material in Incognito will be familiar to you), but Eagleman does an amazing job of showing how processes below the level of conscious awareness control much of our behavior and actually make us who we are.

One of the most frightening yet enlightening case studies that Eagleman discusses in this book is that of a man who had been married for twenty years and lived a normal, law-abiding life when, suddenly and unexpectedly, this man developed an intense interest in child pornography and even attempted to solicit sex from a very young prostitute: this middle-aged heterosexual man suddenly found that he was a pedophile (although he never actually raped a child). At the same time as his sexual appetites were changing, he also began having very bad headaches, so his wife took him to see a physician, and eventually he was diagnosed with a brain tumor. When the tumor was removed, both his headaches and his problem with pedophilia disappeared. About a year later, however, the headaches returned, and so did his sexual interest in children. He returned to the neurologist, and it was discovered that his original tumor had not been completely removed and had started growing again, and upon cutting out the tumor a second time, he again lost his sexual interest in children.

Another example of a tumor causing a sudden change in behavior that Eagleman discusses is that of, Charles Whitman, who in 1966 killed 16 people (and wounded 32 others) on the campus of the University of Texas. Prior to the shooting, Whitman鈥檚 behavior had begun to change dramatically, and he felt that something was wrong with him. In the suicide note he wrote before committing his mass murder, he asked that he be autopsied when he died. When an autopsy was carried out, a tumor was found to have been growing and pressing against his amygdala; the amygdala plays a key role in regulating aggression, fear, and social behavior. Whitman鈥檚 friends testified to the fact that, in the months leading up to the shooting, he had not really been himself. Whitman himself wrote, in his suicide note, that he no longer felt like himself and that he was struggling with violent urges that he could no longer control. Had he not had this tumor, it is almost certain that Whitman would not have become a killer.

Eagleman presents numerous other examples which show that our behavior and personalities are determined to a much greater extent by physiological and chemical processes than the ordinary layperson might think. However, Eagleman also pays due respect to the effects of the environment in which we live as a factor in shaping our very selves, but as he points out, we can no more control the environment in which we find ourselves than we can control the physiological and chemical processes that cause our brains to grow and change.

This book is not meant to be an argument against free will. It is not a philosophical treatise. What it is is a fascinating synthesis of the biological basis of the self and of consicousness. I highly, highly recommend it.
Profile Image for Salem Albusaeedi.
47 reviews230 followers
April 2, 2018
丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賱丕賵丕毓賷
賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇 毓賱賲賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賲乇丞

賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賲賯丕乇亘丞 毓賱賲賷丞 氐乇賮丞 賮賷 丕賱賮氐賵賱 丕賱兀賵賱賶
孬賲 兀禺匕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賳丨賵 賲賳丨丕賸 賮賰乇賷丕賸 賯亘賱 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞
賵卮毓乇鬲 丨賷賳賴丕 兀賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賵賯毓 賮賷 賲睾亘丞 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱賲丕丿賷丞 賰賲丕 賴賵 賲毓鬲丕丿 賮賷 丕賱兀賵爻丕胤 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞

賱賰賳賴 兀丿賴卮賳賷 賮賷 丕賱禺丕鬲賲丞 亘丨丿賷孬賴 毓賳 廿卮賰丕賱賷丕鬲 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱賲丕丿賷丞 賵丕賱廿禺鬲夭丕賱賷丞
亘兀賵囟丨 賲丕 賷賰賵賳 丕賱亘賷丕賳


毓賲賵賲丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 卮賷賯 賵丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賲鬲賯賳丞
賵兀鬲胤賱毓 賱賯乇丕亍丞 兀毓賲丕賱 兀禺乇賶 賱賱賲丐賱賮 賵賱賱賲鬲乇噩賲

4.5/5
Profile Image for Kalin.
Author听71 books283 followers
August 25, 2018
29 袨ct 2014: Just finished editing the Bulgarian translation. My inner selves--as is their wont at the end of a road--are still in a jumble. A more coherent review coming soon. ;)

What I'd like to note right now is: this is another book I highly recommend to scientists and laymen alike. If you've ever struggled with questions such as "Telepathy? What do you mean, reading my mind? Am I supposed to have only one of them?" or "So who is the real me? The one who passionately believes in ahimsa and non-violence? Or the one who wants to beat all of you senseless, for being such a stupid, insensible bunch? Or the one who laughs on the sideline, high above and beyond?" (or with Occam's effing razor), Incognito has some answers for you.

Sorry ... I meant suggestions. ;)

~

20 Dec 2014: This hardly counts as coherent, but ... here goes:

Let me first say that I've appreaciated this book and the new insights (or confirmations of old ones) it gave me a lot. This is the only reason why I let myself spend so much time examining the ideas that didn't quite convince me. (Because, after decades of struggling against myself, I remain a perfectionist. Yes, yes, you already got the point about the selves, yes? :) If I didn't care enough for it, I wouldn't bother.

So, the ideas that didn't quite convince me:

There are some iffy, oversimplifying assumptions here (just like in any popular science book). For instance, the experiment that shows that men find women with dilated pupils more attractive. Here's how Eagleman explains it:

In the largely inaccessible workings of the brain, something knew that a woman鈥檚 dilated eyes correlates with sexual excitement and readiness. Their brains knew this, but the men in the study didn鈥檛 鈥� at least not explicitly. The men may also not have known that their notions of beauty and feelings of attraction are deeply hardwired, steered in the right direction by programs carved by millions of years of natural selection. When the men were choosing the most attractive women, they didn鈥檛 know that the choice was not theirs, really, but instead the choice of successful programs that had been burned deep into the brain鈥檚 circuitry over the course of hundreds of thousands of generations.


However, do dilated pupils imply only sexual excitement? What if they demonstrate any sort of excitement: artistic, spiritual, the "wow, I just had a glimpse into the meaning of life" kind? I'm asking this from personal experience: I've noticed that pupils dilate when people switch into their deeper, more intense modes--whatever the reason. And, boy, don't I love them when they're like that! :D

So, should we say that we're genetically programmed to feel attracted by people in their more intense modes? Is this only about procreation? Is it about creation? What else?

(This is related to the question why--and if--we're attracted by people with larger eyes. Hello, South Korea. ;)

Or listen to this one:

To justify his claim that our brains do most of the work without the involvement (or indeed awareness) of our conscious mind, Eagleman supplies the following examples:

In 1862, the Scottish mathematician James Clerk Maxwell developed a set of fundamental equations that uni铿乪d electricity and magnetism. On his deathbed, he coughed up a strange sort of confession, declaring that 鈥瀞omething within him鈥� discovered the famous equations, not he. He admitted he had no idea how ideas actually came to him 鈥� they simply came to him. William Blake related a similar experience, reporting of his long narrative poem Milton: 鈥濱 have written this poem from immediate dictation twelve or sometimes twenty lines at a time without premeditation and even against my will.鈥� Johann Wolfgang von Goethe claimed to have written his novella The Sorrows of Young Werther with practically no conscious input, as though he were holding a pen that moved on its own.


I have nothing against the claim. I wonder, however, about the relevance of the examples. Of course, writing a scientific book, Eagleman can't quite say, "You know, maybe they did get their input from the outside." Modern science--at least the subset Eagleman adheres to--hasn't proven that human beings are capable of getting input from the outside. Therefore, it must be the result of the subconscious work of our brains. QED.

(What really riled me here was ignoring Blake's phrase "against my will." I know people who write like that: under dictation, aye. Dwelling on topics and expressing voices that have nothing to do with their lives or dispositions. Wondering who these voices are. And since I'm not writing a scientific book but a personal review on 欧宝娱乐, I don't mind saying it. Feel free to explain it away. ;)

Aaaand ...

The paradox of the paradox of free will
The most baffling mystery of scientific thinking nowadays


I. Just. Don't. Get it.

So, there's a subconscious impulse to move my arm several hundred milliseconds before I grow aware of my intention to do so, let alone do it. So, maybe I--the conscious self--am not in charge of moving my arm. So, maybe there's no free will. It's already been decided, all of it. By something else.

But...butbutbut, dear Mr Eagleman:

What made you write ? Rather than ? How many milliseconds do you estimate it took your whatever-it-was-but-definitely-not-free-will to come up with the idea and find the proper words and put them in the proper places?

What makes me write this comment? Rather than polish the Bulgarian translation for the last time? How many milliseconds here? Anyone?

Can anyone please explain what I'm missing?

...

I guess the real problem here is how Eagleman (or , or-- the list goes on and on) defines "free will."

I think this is the closest to a definition that Eagleman provides:

Even in the face of all the machinery that constitutes you, is there some small internal voice that is independent of the biology, that directs decisions, that incessantly whispers the right thing to do? Isn鈥檛 this what we call free will?


Now, if his point is that free will is NOT independent of biology, that is, it takes into account our physical bodies and is influenced by them, I have no bones to pick. I'm yet to see something--anything--that's truly independent of anything else. (I am a .)

The bone-picking starts when I try to quantify this dependence. How much of what we do is determined by the "machinery"? How much, by something else? A lot of recent arguments I've seen leave me with the impression it's all "machinery." Which is as funny as any absolute claim. (This one included, yes. Didn't you just laugh a bit? ;)

To be fair to Eagleman, he does go on to quantify some of the unconscious influences, and ultimately says that for his purposes, the question of free will is irrelevant. Free will may be there, or not--it doesn't change anything about his suggestions on improving the legal system by incorporating our understanding that many actions are outside our conscious control. Which is another idea that I love. I just wonder why he, too, had to go into this "free will" morass.

Incidentally, the best approach I've seen to this issue--"best" as in most convincing and productive--was in , where the protagonist was learning to discover his hidden biological programs and re-program them. However, I don't know what sources inspired Zindell for that.

Interesingly, Eagleman seems to suggest something similar. He calls it prefrontal workout:

So our new rehabilitative strategy is to give the frontal lobes practice in squelching the short-term circuits. My colleagues Stephen LaConte and Pearl Chiu have begun leveraging real-time feedback in brain imaging to allow this to happen. Imagine that you鈥檇 like to get better at resisting chocolate cake. In this experiment, you look at pictures of chocolate cake during brain scanning 鈥� and the experimenters determine the regions of your brain involved in the craving. Then the activity in those networks is represented by a vertical bar on a computer screen. Your job is to make the bar go down. The bar acts as a thermometer for your craving: If your craving networks are revving high, the bar is high; if you鈥檙e suppressing your craving, the bar is low. You stare at the bar and try to make it go down. Perhaps you have insight into what you鈥檙e doing to resist the cake; perhaps it is inaccessible. In any case, you try out different mental avenues until the bar begins to slowly sink. When it goes down, it means you鈥檝e successfully recruited frontal circuitry to squelch the activity in the networks involved in impulsive craving. The long term has won over the short. Still looking at pictures of chocolate cake, you practice making the bar go down over and over until you鈥檝e strengthened those frontal circuits.


It's a beginning. ;)

And now to the really great reminders:

The illusion-of-truth effect:

/quotes/4189495

Even though I'm very well aware of this beast, it's unbelievable how many times I've caught my opinions being swayed by it. :(

A trick I love:

/quotes/4189659

However, I usually do it by offering my friend two (or more) fingers to choose from. Well, finally we know how it works. ;)

Finally, being a holist :P, I love the way Eagleman beats some sense into pure reductionists. Starting with his explanation of emergence:

/quotes/4279987

He goes on with examples from our brains and general biology, and concludes that:

A meaningful theory of human biology cannot be reduced to chemistry and physics, but instead must be understood in its own vocabulary of evolution, competition, reward, desire, reputation, avarice, friendship, trust, hunger, and so on.


Check out the other quotes I've liked too. Here be nuggets.

Did I say the book is highly recommended? ;)

Further reading:

Your brain ain't asploded yet? Give it a shove!


Profile Image for Jaylia3.
752 reviews148 followers
April 4, 2011
This very interesting and thought provoking book by neuroscientist David Eagleman is a little disorienting. After all, based on the numerous observations and scientific experiments he details Eagleman鈥檚 conclusion is that we have no freewill. I may think I am considering options, making decisions, and choosing, for instance, what book to read, but according to scientists who study these things I am not in charge, if by 鈥淚鈥� what I mean is the 鈥淚鈥� that I know--my conscious mind. It鈥檚 not surprising that drugs, alcohol, brain injury, and evolutionary forces exert power over us that we are not always aware of while it is going on, but according to the science Eagleman reports there is more to it than that. In an experiment in which people were asked to lift their fingers at the time of their choosing, the conscious brain impulse to move was preceded by unconscious brain activity.

Is this proof that the conscious decision to move a finger is governed by the unconscious mind? I鈥檓 not sure. And if it is proof, would that carry over into every kind of decision? Does the unconscious mind really have invisible, almost god-like power over every thought and action?

While I am not convinced that the freewill/determinism question has been fully answered--neuroscience is still a very young field of knowledge--the first five chapters of Incognito are full of fascinating, persuasive examples that demonstrate how the reality we perceive with our conscious minds bears sometimes only a rough resemblance to what is actually happening. When reading Incognito I frequently broke off to share these examples with whoever was around me. There are illustrations you can try yourself, for instance there is a graphic that allows you to prove to yourself that your eyes have a blind spot, a gap in vision that your unconscious brain fills in based on what is probably there.

In the final chapters of Incognito Eagleman uses the latest information from brain science to draw logical but sometimes counterintuitive and unsettling conclusions about the future of the justice system. With little or no freewill, what should society do with criminals? Since the unconscious operates on a 鈥渢eam of rivals鈥� model in which conflicting impulses struggle for control, Eagleman would have incarceration based on the neuroplasticity of the offender鈥攖hat is on how likely it is that the criminal鈥檚 brain could respond to reconditioning techniques. Those who could be reconditioned so that they would no longer cause damage to society would be; those who couldn鈥檛 be reconditioned because of frontal lobe impairment or other brain defects would be warehoused.

Even though neuroscience is still in its infancy there is a lot of riveting information here about how the brain works. You don鈥檛 have to agree with all the conclusions Eagleman draws in this book for it to be worth reading. Incognito is a great book for sparking deep and engaging discussions.
Profile Image for Kalin.
Author听71 books283 followers
Read
December 28, 2017
袨褌蟹懈胁褗褌 屑懈 (薪邪 邪薪谐谢懈泄褋泻懈) 械 锌褉懈 芯褉懈谐懈薪邪谢邪. 孝褍泻 褋邪屑芯 褖械 泻邪卸邪, 褔械 谐芯褉械褖芯 锌褉械锌芯褉褗褔胁邪屑 泻薪懈谐邪褌邪, 邪泻芯 褋械 懈薪褌械褉械褋褍胁邪褌械 芯褌 薪邪褔懈薪懈褌械, 锌芯 泻芯懈褌芯 褉邪斜芯褌懈 屑芯蟹褗泻褗褌 薪懈. 孝褟 褋褗写褗褉卸邪 屑薪芯卸械褋褌胁芯 薪械芯褔械胁懈写薪懈, 邪 锌芯褉邪卸写邪褖懈 褔械谢芯锌谢褟褋 薪邪斜谢褞写械薪懈褟. 袗蟹 薪械 褋褗屑 褋械 褔褍胁褋褌胁邪谢 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 屑芯褌懈胁懈褉邪薪 写邪 褋懈 锌褉械芯褋屑懈褋谢褟 屑芯蟹褗泻邪 ;) 芯褌 鈥炩€� 薪邪 袣邪薪械屑邪薪 薪邪褋邪屑.

袛芯斜邪胁泻邪 芯褌 20.12.2017: .
Profile Image for Myth.
112 reviews12 followers
February 11, 2013
Disclaimer: I have not actually finished this book and do not know if I will.

As someone who's very interested in neurology this book does have it's good moments, but they're largely eclipsed by a bunch of dumbing down.

I don't blame Eagleman, I know it's people in the publishing industry who probably pushed this book to be like this. Following is my reaction to each element I found annoying. There's a summary at the end.

Dumbing it down: Too much repetition and unnecessary metaphors. I do not know how many times I have to be told the same thing in different configurations in two to three pages. Okay, I get it. I took the information at face value the first time it was said.

Generalizations: Eagleman makes a ton of sweeping generalizations. I know generalizations are easy, but they're inaccurate and more fit for a marketing campaign than a book. I know Eagleman knows this, because there are times when he takes the more cautious approach and then follows it up with more generalizations. Generalizations lead to assumptions that are not necessarily true, if at all. It's pop-science at it's "best."

Language: The writing style in this book bounces around. There are sections I don't mind, but the use of "you" is incredibly obnoxious. Obviously Eagleman doesn't know the sort of audience he may have, who may think in this rare way, have this condition and so on. The usage of "you" is yet again something more suited to advertisements than books (unless it's self-help.)

Examples/Excersizes: These are so annoying. For one, not all of them will work on an ebook and two, not all of them will work period. This is not a children's textbook, so I don't understand why there are these childish little games. A normal person can reason that the information is true without having the mind games they published in Highlights in the 90s. Not all them work either, for reasons that are covered in the book.

For instance, finding your blind spot. I'm aware I have a blind spot, but the little test didn't work at all and for a simple reason, I know the object/dot is there. Everyone I tried the test on (mostly family members) couldn't get the spot to go away and turn into background fuzz either. Why exactly is it assumed that the mind would turn a spot into background fuzz anyway (even though you shouldn't be able to technically see either?) Why wouldn't some brains simply fill in the dot?

Sources: I took both psychology and media studies in college. I was rarely impressed by my psychology classes. Few actually rely on current information or on experimentation. It's expensive to conduct experiment, but way more reliable. The people who really understand the way the typical person thinks are in marketing and media studies. They stay far more up-to-date and have the money and motivation to do studies. Eagleman relies heavily on psychology which bothers me. A lot of what is known in abnormal psychology is from neurology and from brain injury. Of course there are the therapies that are shown to work, but the ideas surrounding the typical person's psyche seem to be frequently bias and out-of-date.

For instance, Eagleman write about what is basically subliminal messages. Images that are displayed too quickly for the conscious mind to process. There's a ton of research that shows that subliminal messages don't work and that message can't be processed without conscious recognition. This is why subliminal messages aren't used in media anymore and we should be skeptical of any study using such a method. We also have to note that there are layers to our consciousness and it's not as simple as Eagleman writes it to be. Again, I assume he knows this and has dumbed it down.

Aside from the fact that subliminal messages have never been proven to work, it was found in studies that a message followed up too quickly by another message would push out the last one. Basically, make us forget what we just saw - in studies where they flash faces to figure out if someone is racist (or whatever) we probably are consciously processing what we're seeing, but we're not given much time to make a decision. In another example people picked out words that were flashed, we do process them, but if they happen too quickly it can make our memories more fuzzy and incoherent than normal so we'll remember random things.

Studies like this are very prone to human error, bias and I don't have much faith in them. Soft sciences are squishy and should act sponge-like, but are too often isolated and cemented. People in the hard sciences understand the purposes of science and one of those is change.

Additionally, the psychology reveals biases, sexist notions and homophobic culture, which is probably only normal for studies taken from 50 to 100 years ago. Does our species reproduce with the use of two specialized sexes? Yes, but does that mean we're wired entirely just for sex for the sake of sex. No, we're a social species and we rely on community. There are other mammal that get what they want without being the least bit polite to the other they are trying to fornicate with. A zoologist knows more about mammal behavior than an evolutionary psychologist. I wouldn't be surprised if hospital doctors, emergency room workers and proctologists know more about typical human behavior than a psychologist.

Studies of other apes have shown sex to be a social behavior that strengthens community. There's also theories in other fields about why there'd be bisexuals (it seems specifically bisexual woman and maybe a sense of community among females to raise children.) In this book human sexuality and attraction is grossly oversimplified (at least as far as I've read.) If we were so hardwired to attractive and healthy people it shouldn't go against our ethical instincts to say "We should 'fix' ugly, sick people and only let beautiful healthy people reproduce." There's also some hypothesis about us being attracted to what we're most familiar with (which is usually our own appearance) so we'll look for people with appearances that remind us of ourselves (or perhaps our parents.) This would explain our notions about people being well matched or looking good together and beauty in the eye of the beholder.

tl:dr - Book is dumbed down, uses too many generalizations and has some suspect and inaccurate information.

I don't know if I can finish this book. The information is not delivered in a fast-paced or intellectual way and, as such, is not really my style. I'll take my chances with Scientific American over this.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,331 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.